Judgment : One S.Shadrach Paul (petitioner), erstwhile Head Clerk, District Court, Madurai, had been selected and appointed as Sheristadar (category 1 of Class IV of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service - for short ‘TNJMS Rules’) District Court, Madurai by the Principal District Judge, Madurai-20 (second respondent) in his order A.No.314/93 dated 14th May, 1993. On an administrative appeal preferred by one S.Rathinasabapathy (third respondent), erstwhile Sheristadar, Sub Court, Dindigul, this Court set aside the same by order in RCC.No.171/ 93/C1, dated 10. 1993 and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration according to law. 2. On remand, Principal District Judge, Madurai, taking into consideration the relevant materials, by his order in A.No.754/93, dated 210. 1993, selected the third respondent for being appointed as Sheristadar, District Court, Dindigul. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, without resorting to the statutory remedy of revision, as provided for in Rule 1 of the T.N.J.Ms. Rules, resorted to the present action, impleading also the Registrar of this Court as the first respondent, praying for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the same and direct respondents 1 and 2 to promote him as Sheristadar in Category 1 of Class IV thereof. 3. He also filed W.M.P.No.33505 of 1993 for stay of all further proceedings, pending disposal of this writ petition. 4. Admitted fact it is that the petitioner had not availed of the remedy of revision, as has been provided for under Rule 11 of the T.N.J.Ms. Rules. The reason for not availing of such a remedy, as projected by learned counsel for the petitioner, was that if such a remedy is availed of, there is every likelihood of the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation which event is to take place in June, 1994, by sands of passage of time running out by the time and ultimate decision is arrived at therefor. That itself may not be a ground for avoidance of such a remedy and for resorting to the present action under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. He may very well avail of such a revision and urge the authorities concerned to dispose of the same in a matter as expeditiously as possible, taking into consideration the paramount factor of impending superannuation at only of himself but also of the promotee. He may very well avail of such a revision and urge the authorities concerned to dispose of the same in a matter as expeditiously as possible, taking into consideration the paramount factor of impending superannuation at only of himself but also of the promotee. Pertinent it is to note at this juncture, that this aspect of the matter had been stressed in the very proceedings of this Court, whilst remitting the matter back to the second respondent requiring him/to arrive at a decision as quickly as possible. On the same analogy the petitioner, by availing of such a revision, may make a request to the competent authorities of this Court to give expeditious disposal of the revision, if any, to be preferred by him. Such a request if made, the authorities of this Court are also bound to consider the same, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 5. For the above reasons, the writ petition deserves dismissal even at the admission stage and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently W.M.P. is also dismissed.