The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules, and the denial of promotion based on erroneous interpretation of the rules is not justified.

1. At the time of filing of the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, the petitioner was aged 51 years and was working as Assistant in

Chozhapuram Town Panchayat, Thanjavur.

2. The Petitioner was originally appointed as a Bill Collector on 28.03.1981. Lateron, he was appointed as Junior Assistant, by transfer and his services were regularised in the said post.

3. According to the petitioner, he has passed the following tests:-

(1) Panchayat Development Test in 1986

(2) District Office Manual Test i in 1986

(3) Village Swaraj Test in 1987

(4) Community Development Manual Test in 1998

(5) Constitution of India Test in 1989, and

(6) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act Test in 1998.

4. The petitioner has submitted that his next avenue of promotion is the category of Executive Officer Grade II/Assistant/Head Clerk. According to the petitioner, he is fully qualified for promotion to the abovesaid category and when the vacancies arose, he made a representation dated 14.03.2002 to the respondents 1 and 2 to promote him to the abovesaid post. Whileso, the 2nd respondent promoted Mr.R.Sithivinayagamoorthi and Mr.V.Manohar as Head Clerks vide proceedings dated 05.10.2002. According to the petitioner, the abovesaid two persons were juniors to him. Hence, the petitioner gave a representation dated 14.11.2002 to the respondents, pointing out that those persons promoted on 05.10.2002 were juniors and since the petitioner did not suffer from any penalty nor there was any disciplinary proceedings, he should have been promoted on par with them.

5. As there was no response, the petitioner was constrained to send another representation dated 09.01.2003, to the District Collector, Thanjavur, the 2nd respondent herein, requesting him to furnish copies of the orders of promotion dated 05.10.2002, so as to enable him to seek legal remedies. Even this request was also not considered. In the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file O.A.No.673 of 2003, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, seeking for a direction to the respondents, to promote him as Head Clerk of the Town Panchayat or Executive Officer Grade II. By order dated 26.02.2003, the Tribunal gave a direction to the respondents therein, to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and pass further orders. Pursuant to the above directions, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 18.09.2003, rejecting the request of the petitioner, on the ground that he did not pass a test in Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Act prescribed for promotion. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Original Application before the Tribunal, which lateron has been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as the present writ petition.

6. On the abovesaid pleadings and assailing the correctness of the order, Mr.M.Vivekanandan, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.300, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-B) Department, dated 28.08.1992, and contended that only two departmental tests namely, Panchayat Development Account Test and District Office Manual Test, were prescribed for appointment by promotion to the post of Head Clerk and Assistants in Town Panchayat Department and it does not prescribe a test called as 'Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Act', for the purpose of promotion to the abovesaid post.

7. He further submitted that the respondents have erred in relying on a letter dated 22.07.1991 of the 1st respondent, which is only an executive instruction and it would not have any overriding effect on G.O.Ms.No.300, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-B) Department, dated 28.08.1992, which prescribes only two tests for promotion to the post of Head Clerk and Assistants in Town Panchayat Department. It is also his further contention that when G.O.Ms.No.300, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-B) Departmen