The main legal point established is that under Rule 23(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, a probationer's service from a previous department can only be considered for pensionary benefits, not for promotion in a new department.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in letter R.No.24212/R2/2011 dated 18.4.11 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Assistant in the Transport Dept. by taking into consideration the service rendered by him as Typist in the Police Dept. from 14.11.2006 to 19.08.2009 and grant him promotion with all consequential service and monetary benefits.)

1. The petitioner filed the writ petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to set aside the order dated 18.04.2011 made by the 1st respondent Transport Corporation and to further direct the respondents to give him promotion by taking into consideration the past service rendered by him as a Typist in the police department from 14.11.2006 to 19.08.2009 and to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. The service matrix of the petitioner that are necessary for determination of this case is that the petitioner entered the services as Typist through selection conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 2005 and on selection, he was allotted to police department and appointed as Typist in District Police Office, Dharmapuri by an order dated 17.12.2006 and joined the service on the same day and probation was declared on 10.12.2006.

3. According to the petitioner, he has obtained permission from the Superintendent, Dharmapuri and again appeared for TNPSC Examination in the year 2008 for Group-IV for the post of Typist and has come out successful and he was allotted to Transport Department by the proceedings of the Public Service Commission in Memo No.4321/TSDA/2007 dated 10.07.2009. The petitioner was issued with an appointment order by the Regional Transport Officer, Gobichettypalayam in his order No.Na.Ka.25495/C2/2009 dated 05.08.2009 and the petitioner was relied from the office of the District Police, Dharmapuri as Typist on 25.08.2009 afternoon and the petitioner reported for duty as Typist in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Gobichettypalayam on 26.08.2009 FN without any break. Thereafter, the petitioner has also completed the departmental tests as required.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent with whom the petitioner has joined subsequently as a second post has fixed the scale of pay as Typist as fresh entrant in the scale of pay Rs.5200-20200 + Gr. Pay of Rs.2000. The petitioner''s further grievance is that he has not been granted any pay protection, besides, the previous service rendered in the same category in the Police department, Dharmapuri, has not been taken into consideration and  hence, he made a representation to count the service rendered by him in the police department as stated supra. Such a representation was rejected and hence, the writ petition.

5. The contesting respondent filed the counter and the sum and substance of the counter is that the petitioner has not produced any certificate wherein permission was granted by his earlier Head of Department viz., the Police Department for appearance in the examination and what was produced by him is only a ''no objection'', for relieving him and hence relied upon Rule 23(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

6. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner has not joined the transport department by transfer of service and hence, it is mandatory for the petitioner to undergo the probation period in the transport department.

7. On factual ground, the petitioner has admitted the fact that he has resigned the job in police department and joined transport department. No prior permission was obtained by the petitioner and furthermore, the petitioner is not appointed by transfer of service.

8. From the counter, I find that the petitioner wa