The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest writ petition as not maintainable, which challenged the promotion of seven Tamil Nadu IAS officers, including T Udhayachandran of the 1995 batch, to the grade of chief secretary. The petition alleged that the state failed to obtain prior approval of the Union government as mandated by service rules.
Petition Details
The petitioner, M Balakrishnan, had sought a direction to the Tamil Nadu accountant-general to maintain status-quo and refrain from granting, implementing, or disbursing any pay, allowances, perquisites, arrears, pensionary or other monetary benefits pursuant to the Government Order (GO) unless and until prior approval of the Union government was obtained.
Refusing to entertain the plea as a PIL, the first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan stated that PILs which pertain to service matters are not maintainable.
Background of the Case
The issue pertains to a GO issued by the Tamil Nadu government in December 2025 promoting IAS officers M A Siddique, R Jaya, P Senthilkumar, Sandhya Venugopal Sharma, T Udhayachandran, Hitesh Kumar S Makwana, and B Chandra Mohan to the chief secretary grade with effect from January 1, 2026.
Challenging the GO, the petitioner, a practicing advocate, contended that the state cannot issue such a GO without prior approval of the Union government. He pointed out that the state government, through a proposal dated November 10, 2025, sought approval from the Union for notifying the promotions. However, the competent authority, through a communication dated November 21, 2025, rejected the proposal citing multiple statutory violations, including excess operation of ex-cadre posts beyond permissible limits and absence of prior approval.
Allegations of Arbitrary Action
Despite such explicit rejection, the state proceeded to initiate and complete the promotion process. The petitioner argued that the action of the state is ex facie without jurisdiction and arbitrary. He made several representations bringing these illegalities to the notice of the authorities, but no action was taken. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition.
The court's decision reinforces the principle that service-related matters cannot be adjudicated through public interest litigations, as they involve individual grievances rather than broader public interest concerns.
