In a recent ruling, Madras High Court’s Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar addressed the case of G. Ravichandran vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem), setting a precedent on promotion qualifications within the corporation.
G. Ravichandran, a long-serving employee initially hired as a record clerk (company trainee). In 1988, he progressed through the ranks to become a senior superintendent at the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TSTC). Claiming eligibility for the position of assistant manager (Legal) due to his law degree, Ravichandran filed writ petitions when overlooked for promotion in favour of junior colleagues without similar educational qualifications.
Ravichandran contended that his law degree met the criteria outlined in the organisation’s Common Service Rules for promotion to assistant manager (Legal). He alleged unjust treatment, asserting that despite meeting requirements, he was bypassed for promotion.
The amil Nadu State Transport Corporation argued that while Ravichandran held a law degree, he lacked necessary practical experience in civil or mofsel courts as an advocate, a prerequisite for the role. Additionally, his incomplete five-year tenure as senior superintendent, as per Rule 60(d)(i) of the Common Service Rules was highlighted.
The Court noted that the petitioner was appointed as a senior superintendent on 30 May, 2015, without completing the mandatory five-year service period required by Rule 60(d)(i) of the Common Service Rules for eligibility for promotion to assistant manager (Legal).
That is not all; the Court pointed out the petitioner’s lack of essential practical experience in civil or mofsel courts as an advocate, a prerequisite for the assistant manager (legal) role.
Regarding the corporation’s seniority list, the Court confirmed its alignment with applicable rules and regulations. It further observed that promotions within the TSTC were based on merit and eligibility criteria, encompassing completion of necessary service years and possession of required qualifications in accordance with the Common Service Rules.
Consequently, dismissing the writ petitions, the Court upheld TSTC’s promotion procedures, signalling adherence to established eligibility standards for advancement within the organisation.
