ORDER

CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 18886-87/91 & 9056-57/92

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras by purported judgment and order, made on June 11, 1991 in T.A. Nos. 123 and 127 of 1989, has held that under Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules on preparation of the panel either with the names or nil annual list, the Government exhausted their power to make another list in the same year for promotion of the subordinate officers to the higher post in the State or Subordinate service. The said view is in question in these appeals.

3. The admitted position is that due to bifurcation of new firkas and upgradation of Sub-Taluks into Taluks 23 vacancies of Assistants had arisen in Pudukottai District. The crucial date for preparation of the panel is as prescribed by the appropriate rules. It is not in dispute in these cases that the crucial date is March 15, 1979. As on the date, there were no vacancies existing or anticipated in the said District. But due to bifurcation of the firkas and upgradation of the sub-Taluks into Taluks, as stated earlier, 23 new posts were created by the Government for filling up