S. MARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse in the year 1990. While in service, the petitioner with the permission of the first respondent studied B.Sc. (Nursing) and completed in the year 2004 and thereby she has become eligible for the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II in the year 2004 itself. The petitioner's name was listed in the serial No.33 (CNL No.6953) instead of fixing her name between one G.Mary (CNL 6932) who was already retired and V.Uma Maheswari (CNL 6961) in the panel of the year 2004-2005. However, the second respondent has issued promotion and posting order to the petitioner for the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II on 6/11/2007 though the petitioner has become eligible for the said post in the year 2004 itself. The petitioner has made several representations to the respondents 2 and 3 regarding seniority of the petitioner from 2004-2005. In the meantime, the petitioner also completed M.Sc. (Nursing) in the year 2013. While so, the second respondent regularised the services for the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II from the Panel year 1985 to 2016-2017. However, the petitioner's name was found in the list of regularised Nursing Tutor Grade II for the panel year 2006-2007. Again, the third respondent prepared a panel for the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II for the year 2022-2023 and the same was issued by proceedings in Ref.No.43945/N2/2022 dtd. 13/6/2022. In the present list also, the petitioner's name was in the same place without any change even though the petitioner's date of birth is senior to other members in the panel. Therefore, challenging the impugned order dtd. 13/6/2022, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court to revise the seniority of the petitioner.

(2.) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner seeks seniority for promotion to the post of Nursing Tutor Grade II for the year 2004-2005. The seniority for the said post was already fixed in the year 2004 and the same was settled and at this juncture, after the lapse of 18 years, the petitioner cannot seeks to revise the said seniority and therefore, interference of this Court is not warranted.

(3.) Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials available on record.