Supreme Court of India· 22 August 2026

Can eligibility for the feeder post be reopened while considering promotion to the higher post?

R.J. Gajendra Kumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr

2026 INSC 911
Coram: Ujjal Bhuyan; Manoj Misra

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.25 Tamil Nadu Government Serva…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Not where that appointment has gone unchallenged. The question before the Court was the eligibility of the appellant to be considered for promotion to the next higher post, and nobody had challenged his promotion to the feeder post of Tourist Officer in which he has rendered service for more than 15 years. It is not open to the first respondent to rake up the issue of his eligibility to hold that post.

Headnote

Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 — s.25 — s.54 — Constitution of India — Art.309 — Distance education degree — Prospective operation — Feeder post eligibility — Promotion — Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 — s.25 — s.54 — Saving of existing members of service — Held: Explanation 1(b) to Section 25 took effect on 14.09.2016 and does not affect degrees obtained before that date. By the saving clause in Section 54 a person already a member of the service is governed by the rules and orders applicable to him immediately prior. (¶30) Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 — s.25 — Distance education mode not excluded — Held further: Nowhere does Explanation 1(b) to Section 25 say that the degree should be obtained through the regular physical course and not through the distance education mode. A degree so obtained cannot be treated as invalid for promotion. (¶30) Statutory rules — Prospective operation — Qualification obtained under norms then in force — Held further: Every statutory rule is prospective unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective. A candidate qualified under the norms then prevailing cannot be made ineligible by resorting to the maze of later Government orders. (¶43, 50) Service law — Unchallenged appointment to the feeder post — Scope of adjudication on promotion — Held further: Where the promotion to the feeder post has stood unchallenged for fifteen years, it is not open to the authority to rake up eligibility to hold that post while considering promotion to the next higher post. Appeals allowed. (¶23, 51)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 23Question before the High Court, both before the Single Bench and before the Division Bench, was the eligibility of the appellant to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Director of Tourism. Unfortunately, the High Court diverted its attention to the aspect of appellant’s eligibility to hold the post of Tourist Officer, rather than considering his eligibility for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Director of Tourism. Nobody had challenged appellant’s promotion to the post of Tourist Officer in which post he has rendered service for more than 15 years now. Though the learned Single Judge held that appellant had the eligibility to hold the post of Tourist Officer and, therefore, he is eligible to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Director of Tourism, the Division Bench disagreed therefrom and held that in the first place, appellant was not eligible to even hold the post of Tourist Officer (though it did not disturb the service of the appellant as Tourist Officer); therefore, he is not eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Director.

Paragraph 51On due consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in holding that at the time of appointment of the appellant by way of promotion to the feeder post of Tourist Officer, GO Ms No. 528 dated 18.05.1985 was holding the field. This made his appointment to the post of Tourist Officer valid. That apart, as already noted above, nobody has challenged the promotion of the appellant to the post of Tourist Officer. Now that the question of consideration for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Director of Tourism has arisen, it is not open to the first respondent to rake up the issue of eligibility of the appellant to hold the post of Tourist Officer, which in any view of the matter is not correct.

Acts & Sections

s.25 Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016s.54 Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016s.1(2) Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016Art.309 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of R.J. Gajendra Kumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does Section 25 of the 2016 Act affect degrees obtained before it came into force?Must a degree be obtained through a regular course rather than the distance education mode?Can a later Government Order retrospectively invalidate a qualification obtained under earlier norms?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections