1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the competent authority, rejecting the claim of petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, on contemplated departmental enquiry in charges of misconduct as also the order passed in appeal upholding the order of rejection.

2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner is a selection grade Assistant in the Revenue Department. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 23.09.1983 and was promoted as Assistant on 05.12.1994.

3. The petitioner was awarded selection grade in the post of Assistant in May 2005. The next channel of promotion from the post of selection grade Assistant is to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, which is category-II post falling under Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service.

4. The appointment to the post is by way of transfer on the basis of seniority in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. The crucial date for drawing of panel for the purpose of appointment by transfer is 15th September of each year.

5. It is pleaded case of petitioner, that in the seniority list of Assistant, published by the District Collector, the ranking of the eligible persons who were seniors and juniors to the petitioner is as follows:

Sl.No.30 - Mr.N.R.Sekar - Senior

Sl.No.31 - Mr.G.Venkatachalam - Petitioner

Sl.No.35 - Mr.K.Parthasarathy - Immediate Junior got promoted

6. The petitioner was fully qualified for appointment by transfer, as he had passed all the department tests, prescribed in Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Services as on the crucial date of 15th September, 2006.

7. The District Collector accordingly prepared a panel of Assistants fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2006. This panel was published for promotion of 31 persons as Deputy Tahsildar. Though the petitioner was fully eligible and fell within the zone of consideration, his name was not included in the panel, though persons senior as well as junior of the petitioner were included.

8. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed, that the name of petitioner was not included in view of contemplated charges against the petitioner under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules, The petitioner was given liberty to file appeal against this decision, which the petitioner filed and it was also dismissed.

9. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders of non-inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion, as also dismissal of appeal primarily, on the ground, that it is admitted case of the parties, that crucial date for preparation of panel is 15th September 2006. It is admitted, that persons included in the panel were appointed by transfer as Deputy Tahsildar on 21.03.2007 and that on both the dates, there was no charge memo pending against the petitioner, nor there was any order of punishment awarded.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the impugned orders on the face of it, are arbitrary and amount to colourable exercise of power, as merely based on contemplated enquiry, person could not be denied promotion.

11. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and ors. Vs. M.P.Shah, 2010 (4) SLR 312, laying down, that promotion of an employee cannot be withheld, merely because charge sheet is contemplated against him, when the promotion was effected.

12. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Coal India Ltd. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra, 2007 (4) SLR 75, laying down, that merely on the ground of pendency of vigilance case against an employee, he cannot be deprived of promotion. Finally, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.O. Arumugam and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 199, laying down as under:

"5. As to the merits o