Chennai: The Madras High Court has raised serious questions over the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to promote seven Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers to the Chief Secretary grade.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan adjourned the matter to June 10, 2026, after expressing doubts about whether a PIL could be entertained in matters relating to government service and promotions.
Court Questions Maintainability of PIL
During the hearing, the Bench observed that the Supreme Court has consistently held that service-related disputes cannot ordinarily be brought before constitutional courts through PILs.
The judges referred to a series of Supreme Court rulings beginning with the landmark judgment in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu versus Jitendra Kumar (1998), which laid down that issues concerning government service are generally not amenable to PIL jurisdiction.
The Bench noted that grievances relating to service matters must ordinarily be pursued before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) or through appropriate writ petitions filed by affected parties before a Single Judge of the High Court.
The judges further remarked that the Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that PILs should not be used as a shortcut to challenge service-related decisions.
Hearing Adjourned to June 10
The matter was adjourned after the petitioner’s counsel sought time for the appearance of a senior advocate to advance arguments in the case.
The court also took note of the appearance of Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan, assisted by Central Government Senior Panel Counsel C. Kulandaivelu, representing the Union Government.
The next hearing is scheduled for June 10, 2026.
Government Order Under Challenge
The PIL challenges a Government Order (G.O.) issued by the Tamil Nadu Government on December 24, 2025, promoting seven IAS officers of the 1995 batch and related cadres to the Chief Secretary grade with effect from January 1, 2026.
The officers promoted under the order are:
- M.A. Siddique
- R. Jaya
- P. Senthilkumar
- Sandhya Venugopal Sharma
- T. Udhayachandran
- Hitesh Kumar S. Makwana
- B. Chandra Mohan
At the time of promotion, M.A. Siddique was serving as Managing Director of Chennai Metro Rail Limited, while T. Udhayachandran was serving as Finance Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu. Sandhya Venugopal Sharma was serving as Chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO).
Temporary Additional Chief Secretary Posts Created
The government order also sanctioned the creation of temporary Additional Chief Secretary-level posts in the Departments of Economics and Statistics, Health and Family Welfare, and School Education.
The move enabled officers R. Jaya, P. Senthilkumar, and B. Chandra Mohan to continue in their respective assignments while holding the upgraded rank.
Additionally, the order specified that Hitesh Kumar S. Makwana would stand promoted to the Chief Secretary grade without affecting his central deputation assignment as Surveyor General of India.
Petitioner Questions Need for Central Approval
The PIL was filed by Chennai resident M. Balakrishnan of Anna Nagar.
The petitioner has contended that the state government ought not to have issued the promotion order without obtaining concurrence or approval from the Central Government.
Accordingly, the petition names the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the Union Cabinet Secretary among the respondents.
Balakrishnan has also sought a direction restraining the office of the Principal Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, from releasing higher salaries, allowances, perquisites, arrears, pensionary benefits, or any other monetary advantages arising from the disputed government order until the matter is finally decided.
Legal Significance
The case has drawn attention not only because it involves the promotion of senior IAS officers but also because it raises an important legal question regarding the scope and maintainability of PILs in service matters.
The High Court’s observations suggest that before examining the merits of the challenge, it may first determine whether such a petition is legally maintainable under established judicial precedents.
The outcome of the hearing scheduled for June 10 could have implications for future attempts to challenge service-related decisions through public interest litigation.
