Judgment : 1. Heard both parties. In the above writ petition the petitioner has moved for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the second respondent therein in his proceedings D.Dis.E.7/10869/87 dated 9.3.1987 and to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 9.3.1987 insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned and consequently directing the respondents herein to perform their statutory duty by promoting the petitioner herein as Superintendent with effect from 1.11.1983 and place him in the proper placement in the inter-district seniority list of Superintendents prepared in the year 1983 and grant further promotion to the petitioner herein based on the said list with all emoluments, increments and all other benefits due to the petitioner. 2. The admitted facts of the case are stated as follows: The petitioner was recruited as a clerk in the year 1974 in the respondent-Corporation. By the proceedings dated 31.7.1982 of the Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil supplies Corporation, Nagercoilo-2 and as per the proceedings of the first respondent dated 25.6.1982, the petitioner was upgraded as Assistant with effect from 31.10.1979. However, as per the proceedings dated 4.9.1985 of the first respondent, one A.K.Elumalai and K.Shanmuganathan were promoted as Assistants on 11.5.1982 and 18.10.1982 with retrospective effect from 7.8.1980 and 26.6.1980 respectively. In the same proceedings dated 4.9.1985, a panel for the promotion of Superintendent was pre-pared for the year 1985 wherein the name of the petitioner was not included. Aggrieved by the said panel for the promotion 10 the post of Superintendent, the petitions along with other five similarly placed persons made representation on 4.10.1985. But the same was rejected by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 9.31987. Hence, the above writ petition. 3. Mr.Peter Francis, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the admitted facts that the petitioner, A.K.Elumalai and K.Shanmuganathan were promoted as Assistants with effect from 31.10.1979, 7.8.1980 and 26.6.1980 respectively, the refusal to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for the promotion to the post of Superintendent, in the absence of any charges or disciplinary proceedings or punishment against him is arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the denial of such promotion chance to the petitioner violates Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the denial of such promotion chance to the petitioner violates Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, Mr.N.Kannadasan, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation contends that the petitioner and five other persons have completed their four years in the cadre of Assistant only on 20.8.1986. The crucial date of drawal of panel every year is 1st April. As such the petitioner and five other Assistants had become eligible for the promotion only on 1.4.1987. However, the counter affidavit is silent under what circumstances Tvl.A.K.Elumalai and K.Shanmuganathan, who were promoted as Assistants only on 11.5.1982 and 18.10.1982 with retrospective effect from 7.8.1980 and 26.6.1980 respectively, were included in the panel prepared for the year 1985 while the name of the petitioner was not considered, even though he was admittedly promoted as Assistant on 31.10.1979. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. There is no dispute as to the date of promotion of the petitioner. A.K.Elumalai and Shanmuganathan that they were promoted as Assistants on 31.10.1979, 7.8.1980 and 26.6.1980 respectively. Therefore, in the absence of any proper explanation justifying the promotion of A.K.Elumalai and Shanmuganathan as Superintendent by including their names in the panel prepared for the promotion to the post of Superintendent for the year 1985. and in the absence of convincing reasons for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner who was admittedly promoted as Assistant much earlier to them viz., on 31.10.1979, to include in the panel prepared for promotion to the post of Superintendent for the year 1985.I am satisfied that the grievance of the petitioner in this regard is well founded. When the respondent-Corporation had chosen to consider the names of A.K.Elumalai and K.Shanmuganathan who are admittedly juniors to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant, after satisfying that they have completed all minimum required qualification, I do not find any just and valid reason for refusing to include the name of the petitioner in the promotion panel for the year 1985 itself. Therefore, rejection of the request of the petitioner by the impugned proceedings dated 9.3.1997 is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and therefore, violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. In there sult, the writ petition is allowed. Therefore, rejection of the request of the petitioner by the impugned proceedings dated 9.3.1997 is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and therefore, violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. In there sult, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are quashed and the respondent Corporation is directed to promote the petitioner by including his name in the panel of promotion required for the post of Superintendent for the year 1985 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No. 16558 of 1988 is dismissed.