Administrative Delay, Acts of Court Shouldn't Come In Way: Madras HC Directs State To Promote Eligible Professors As Dean In Govt Medical Colleges

Justice Anand Venkatesh in his order observed, “In the case in hand, there was an oral direction issued by the Madurai Bench of this Court not to issue the promotion and transfer order till a particular date and ultimately, those writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. This oral direction issued by the Madurai Bench of this Court should not act prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners, who would have otherwise got the promotion and transfer orders along with others on 28.2.2019 when the Medical Officers working in the other 22 specialities were issued with the promotion and transfer orders".

The court noted that the Government delayed the promotion of the individuals due to an oral instruction by the court asking the state not to issue any promotion order until a challenge to the same was heard. The court noted that the petitioners, who were otherwise eligible to be appointed as Deans, should not be denied the opportunity when they were not at fault. The court added that no person should suffer due to the act of the court.

“The mind of this Court is redolent with the Latin maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit', which means that an act of court shall prejudice no one. It is now too well settled that no person should suffer for the act on the part of the Court and it cannot be put against him to his prejudice,” the court said.

With respect to further delay attributed to the Code of Conduct, which came into force from 11.3.2019 before the 2019 general elections to the Lok Sabha, the court said,"It is quite unfortunate that the Code of Conduct has been put against the petitioners. It is not a case of any fresh appointment or a fresh promotion and transfer posting. The entire process was over much before the issuance of the Code of Conduct and what remained was a mere administrative act of issuing promotion and transfer order, which waited till the completion of the Lok Sabha poll".

The court observed that the petitioners had admittedly participated in the promotion counselling that was held along with others and for reasons, which are not attributable to them or in other words, "for which, the petitioners cannot be blamed", promotion and posting orders came to be issued at a later point of time and that is now being put against the petitioners. This was being used against the petitioners to state that on the  crucial date i.e on 15.3.2024, the petitioners had not completed the five years' teaching experience as Professors.

The court was hearing a plea by a group of doctors seeking directions to the Health and Family Welfare Department to include them in the 2024-25 panel for promotion to the post of Deans of medical Colleges without reference to the date of joining the post of Professor.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that as per Rules, the position of Dean could be held by a person possessing a recognised postgraduate medical degree from a recognised institution with a minimum of 10 years teaching experience as Professor/Associate Professor in a medical college or institution out of which, 5 years should be as a Professor in the concerned department.

In the present case, the department argued that there was a delay in the issuance of promotional orders to the petitioners due to an oral direction of the court. it was submitted that after the same, the Model Code of Conduct for the 2019 General Elections came into force, which caused further delay in issuing the promotion orders. It was also argued that the petitioners, not having challenged their promotion in 2019, could not challenge their non-inclusion for appointment as Dean.

The petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that in 2019, there was no occasion for them to challenge the promotion orders as they never thought it would be put against them. The petitioners also relied upon a communication sent by the Principal Secretary to the Secretary asking him to include the names of eligible Medical Officers without reference to their date of promotion.

The State argued that even though such a communication was issued, the State could not promote medical officers as the Rules did not allow such a relaxation. It was submitted that the Government had to strictly follow the rules.

The court noted that the requirement of 5 years could not be fulfilled by the petitioners due to the act of the court and due to administrative delays, which could not be put against the petitioners, who were otherwise eligible.

The court also disagreed with the State's stand that the petitioners ought to have challenged the promotional order in 2019. The court noted that the petitioners never had a cause of to question the promotional posting orders as Professors since they never anticipated that it is going to be put against them when they go into the next promotion to the post of Dean. The court noted that there was no delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the court as the cause of action arose only when the Government took a policy decision not to include their names.

Thus, noting that they should not be prejudiced due to "acts of the court and administrative delay", the court allowed the plea and directed the authorities to give promotion to the petitioners to the post of Dean by placing them in the appropriate position as per their seniority in the Civil Medical List (CML).

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G. Sankaran, SC for Mr. B. Nedunchezhiyan, Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, SC for M/s. Isaac Chambers, Mr. K. Nishanth

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P. S. Raman, AG, assisted by Mrs. M. Sneha, Special Counsel, Mr. Adinarayana Rao, Mr. V. Kadhirvelu, Mr. V. P. Sarathi for M/s. V. P. S Law Firm, Ms. T. Divya, Mr. Dinuprashanth

Case Title: Prof. Dr. R. Manonmani and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 81

Case No: WP.Nos.26560, 31048 31109 & 31335 of 2024