JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the first respondent ie., the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai relating to his R.C.No.37409/A3/2016 dated 16.08.2016 and quash the same and consequently to direct the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai to post the petitioner as Assistant Accounts Officer for the year 2015-16 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 16.08.2016, and to direct the first respondent to post the petitioner as Assistant Accounts Officer for the year 2015-16 within a time stipulated by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Linga Durai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner serves in the respondent department as Commercial Accountant in the Institute of Tool Engineering, Industries and Commerce Department, Dindigul. The petitioner submitted that the Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce called for proposals for preparation of panel for appointment of Assistant Accounts Officer in Class IV of Treasuries and Accounts State Service for the year 2015-16 by transfer among the persons holding the posts of Superintendent, Commercial Accountants and Auditors in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service.

4. The petitioner joined in the feeder category, namely, Commercial Accountant on 10.08.2009 by transfer from other department. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the seniority list sent by the Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, Chennai, the petitioner's name was included in the sixth position in the panel for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer for the year 2015-16. However, it is stated further that in the panel, as approved by the Director of Industries and Commerce, the petitioner's name was left over. It is the case of petitioner that his junior, by name, A.S.Raveendran, whose name was found in serial number 7, as per the previous seniority list prepared by Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, was included in the panel approved on 25.02.2016 by the first respondent.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the seniority list, prepared by the Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, has been modified by removing the name of the petitioner and including his junior A.S.Raveendran. Since the petitioner's junior has been serving as Assistant Accounts Officer, it is contended that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's representation is arbitrary and illegal. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's junior, by name, A.S.Raveendran, joined duty in the post of Commercial Accountant in 25.06.2009 and that the first respondent has decided seniority only by taking into account the date of joining duty in the post of Commercial Accountant.

6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the seniority in the feeder category, namely, Commercial Accountant, has to be considered only as per the approved panel for the post of Commercial Accountant. Since, the petitioner's name was not included in the approved panel for the post of Commercial Accountant, as per the proceedings, dated 16.06.2009, it is stated that irrespective of the date of joining of the said A.S.Raveendran, the petitioner should be considered as senior.

7. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the date of joining in the promoted post depends upon the date on which the then incumbent was relieved from the earlier post and that therefore, seniority should be considered based on the seniority in the approved panel and not based on the date of joining in the promoted post. Since the first respondent in his impugned letter