Regularized date of service is pivotal in determining seniority and promotion eligibility.

Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Pro.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.11979/Pa.A2/2003 dated 012. 2005 and Rc.No.19745/E.2/2007 dated 06.09.2007 and direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner as Inspector of Sericulture from 1981 onwards and to fix the seniority in the post on par with his Juniors i.e. S.No.46(a) and to further direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner as Assistant Director, Sericulture w.e.f. 1981 onwards.

2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:-

(i) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Inspector of Sericulture on 11. 1975 and has completed 4 years of service as on 12. 1979. At that time, since there was urgent need to fill up Asst. Inspector of Sericulture, Petitioner was temporarily promoted as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture w.e.f. 12. 1979. Petitioner has filed O.A.No.4126/91 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of the service rules insisted upon minimum 5 years of service for non-graduates for promotion from the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture to the post of Inspector of Sericulture whereas no such restriction for graduates. Observing that the rule prescribing 5 years of service for non-graduates for promotion is discriminatory, TAT has set aside the rule by its order dated 12. 2003.

.(ii) Based on the Tribunals order, Government issued necessary amendment for the rule and eliminated the discrimination between the graduate Asst. Inspector of Sericulture and non-graduate Asst. Inspector of Sericulture. Government in G.O.Ms.No.128, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles & Khadi (G1) department dated 27. 2005 issued instructions to take necessary action to revise the panel as per rules.

(iii) Grievance of the Petitioner is that after the receipt of the said G.O., Director of Sericulture have not issued the revised seniority of the Petitioner in the post of Inspector of Sericulture based on the amended rules and the Petitioner has not been placed on par with his Juniors. Earlier, Petitioner has filed W.P.No.23111/2007 challenging the order of 1st Respondent and that Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law.

(iv) 1st Respondent rejected the representation of the Petitioner stating that there is no need to change the seniority of the Petitioner in the post of Inspector of Sericulture from Sl.86. According to the Petitioner, Respondents should have fixed seniority of the Petitioner in the post of Inspector of Sericulture in Sl.No.50(A) and based on that, 1st Respondent should have promoted the Petitioner as Asst. Director of Sericulture as his Juniors were promoted as Asst. Director of Sericulture.

.3. Respondents have filed counter stating that as per Special rules prescribed for the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture prior to 20.12.1983 for promotion to the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture from the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture, service for a period of not less than 5 years of Junior Inspector of Sericulture was necessary. Petitioner was regularly appointed as Junior Inspector of Sericulture on 11. 1975 FN. According to the Respondents due to urgent need for filling up the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture, the Petitioner was temporarily promoted as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture under Rule 39(a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State & Subordinate Service Rules w.e.f. 12. 1979 even prior to fulfilling the required qualification i.e., completion of 5 years of service in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture. Thereafter, his services in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture was regularized on 11. 1980 i.e., after completion of 5 years of service from the date of regularization in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture as prescribed in special rules. Accordingly his seniority was fixed in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture and he was promoted