Full Judgment
1. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Office of Director of Public Health on compassionate ground on 17.10.1997. As per the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, he has to undergo the foundational training at Bhavanisagar and till he completes the said course, he is deemed to be in probation. Rule 32a(i) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, reads as follows;
Every person appointed to a category by direct recruitment shall be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years.
2.Within the continuous period of three years, he must have completed the period of two years for declaration of probation. It is true that within the said period, he must have completed the foundational course, which is a condition precedent for consideration to the next post of promotional avenues. Admittedly, it was only after the fourth year, he has completed the foundational course successfully. The case of the petitioner is that it is not because of the fault on his part, but it was due to inability of the Department in relieving him, he was unable to complete the probation within the prescribed period. In the meantime, the vacancy arose in the promotional post of Assistant. Therefore, he has made a representation for the purpose of considering him for promotion on the basis that he has completed the probation, as per the Rules, even though he has not completed the Bhavanisagar training, which is the condition precedent, since it was fault on the part of the employer and not on his fault and that came to be rejected in the impugned order. It is against that, the present writ petition has been filed.
3.The main contention as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that sending of training course is the duty of the employer and inasmuch as the employer failed to send him for training, the petitioner being the employee, cannot be put to peril. He has also submitted that it is not as if he has voluntarily refused to undergo the training and therefore, according to him, it must be construed that he has completed the probation successfully and consequently, he should be given the next promotion to the post of Assistant.
4. On a reference to the impugned order shows that he, having been appointed on 17.10.1997, has undergone the foundational training from 22.01.2002 to 22.03.2002, which is clearly after four years. Patently it is against the provision of the statutory Rules elicited above. It is well settled that the promotion is not a matter of right or a fundamental right to claim. In fact, on a reading of the impugned order also shows that the service register of the petitioner has not been received from the appointing authority and as soon as the same is received, further action will be taken and his request would be considered, as per his representation, dated 22.05.2009.
5.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 32a(i), he may be entitled for declaration of probation, since, according to him, two years plus three years must be taken together for the probation of the employee. The said contention is not tenable, for the reason that on a reading of the Rule it is abundantly clear that it is the total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years, i.e., a person should be completed two years of service within three years to become eligible for declaration of probation.
6. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the first respondent. It is needless to state that as and when his turn comes for the purpose of including his name for the post of Assistant, it is certainly for the first respondent to take appropriate action. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, except making the above observations. The dismissal of the writ petition shall not stand in the way of the petitioner from being considered for promotion, in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.