Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.

The Writ Petitioners before us, who are working as Steno-typist Grade-III in various courts in Kanyakumari District, sought for a writ for quashing the proceedings dated 16.02.2016, issued on the Administrative side by this Court.

2. The case of the writ petitioners is that they were working as Steno-typist Grade-III in the Judicial Ministerial Service of Kanyakumari District. Sometime during July 2013, the learned District and Sessions Judge of Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, appears to have instructed the Steno-typists Grade-III standing at Serial Nos. 1 to 14 in the seniority list, to give their consent for working as Steno-typist Grade II in the District Court or otherwise to submit a letter of relinquishment. Accordingly, it appears, 13 of those Steno-typists Grade-III, excepting the second petitioner herein, appear to have tendered their letters of relinquishment of promotion to Steno-typist Grade II, on 30.07.2013. The second petitioner appears to have given a similar relinquishment letter on 07.08.2013. However, the learned District and Sessions Judge passed an order on 05.08.2013 accepting the relinquishment of the rights of the petitioners and declared that the petitioners are not liable to be considered for promotion to the post of Steno-typist Grade II. It further appears that the learned District and Sessions Judge has recorded on 04.11.2013 in his proceedings ROC No. 174/2013-A that the 14 Steno-typists Grade III mentioned therein are permitted to relinquish their right for further promotion for three years with effect from 07.08.2013. The petitioners have preferred an appeal on the Administrative side of the High Court on 27.01.2015 against that order and that appeal has been rejected by the High Court on 17.02.2016. Hence, the present writ petition is instituted.

3. Heard Sri. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the writ Petitioners and Sri. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned counsel for the Respondents.

4. Sri. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that right to be considered for promotion would accrue only when a vacancy occurs and the question of 14 people in the seniority list appearing before the District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari on a single day and accepting to be considered for promotion against one single post of Steno-typist Grade-II or in the alternative relinquish their right to get so promoted would not arise, in normal circumstances. Learned counsel would submit that if the promotion post is a selection post, the zone of consideration is liable to be fixed in a reasonable proportion of 1:3 or at best 1:5, but certainly not 1:14 and hence the question of recording that the first 14 persons in the seniority list have relinquished at one go their right to be considered for promotion is certainly erroneous.

5. Before we answer the question posed in this writ petition, we consider it appropriate to notice the Special Rules Governing Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service, after supersession of the earlier set of Rules published through G.O. No. 2742 Public (Services), dated 30.09.1953. New Rules were brought into force on and from 1.1.1955. These Rules are holding the field ever since then by undergoing suitable amendments/ modifications. Rule 2 of these Rules defined various expressions mentioned in the Rules. Rule 2 defines the expression "Approved Candidate" in the following words:-"Approved Candidate" means a candidate whose name appears in an authoritative list of candidates approved for appointment to this service or any class or category thereof. Clause (13) defines the expression "Recruited direct" in the following words:- "A candidate is said to be "recruited direct" to the service, class, category or post when, in case his first appointment thereto has to be made in consultation with the Commission, on the date of its notification inviting applications for the recruitment, and in any other case, at the time of his first appointment