Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1523 of 2003 dated 25.4.2003. 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be recounted in brief:- First respondent was appointed as Executive Officer, Grade II, in 1984 and in course of time he was promoted as Grade I, Executive Officer, on 31.12.1994. Subsequently, his name was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner and a panel was prepared by the Government on 28.3.2003 including his name and thereafter an order was passed on 9.4.2003 promoting the first respondent as Assistant Commissioner. However, it was brought to the notice of the State Government that there were allegations relating to serious irregularities on the part of the first respondent between 16.6.1997 and 10.8.2001 and the Commissioner, the present second petitioner, has issued a charge-memo dated 9.4.2003 framing 13 charges against the first respondent under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. The first respondent filed a representation dated 17.4.2003 to the present second petitioner seeking permission to be relieved enabling him to join the promotional post. At that stage, the first respondent filed O.A.No.1523 of 2003 on 23.4.2003 for issuing a direction to the present petitioners to allow him to join as Assistant Commissioner as per the order of promotion dated 9.4.2003. Such Application was taken up by the Tribunal on 25.4.2003 and at the stage of admission itself, the Tribunal has disposed of the O.A., practically allowing the same. It has been observed by the Tribunal that after the name of the applicant was included in the panel for promotion and an order was passed by the State Government, the Commissioner had no business to prevent the applicant from joining in the promotional post. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the present petitioners - “... to consider the representation of the applicant dated 17.4.2003 in the light of the observations made above and pass orders, relieving the applicant and allow him to join in the promotive post. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the present petitioners - “... to consider the representation of the applicant dated 17.4.2003 in the light of the observations made above and pass orders, relieving the applicant and allow him to join in the promotive post. The enquiry can be proceeded with even after the applicant is promoted and joins the promotive post and if he is found guilty, he can be firmly dealt with.” After the aforesaid order was passed by the Tribunal, the Government in 6493/RE.2.2/2003-II/ dated 13.6.2003 directed the Commissioner to take action against the person responsible for not reporting the irregularities committed by the present first respondent before preparation of the panel for promotion, thus making it clear that the order of promotion should not be given effect to. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed by the State Government as well as the Commissioner jointly for quashing the direction issued by the Tribunal. An order of interim stay has been passed by the Bench at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioners have placed reliance upon the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.368, P & AR Department, dated 18.10.1993 and contended that even though an order of promotion was passed, since the first respondent had not yet joined, the petitioners were justified in not permitting the first respondent to join the promotional post as a departmental proceeding is pending. 4. Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the aforesaid G.O., being relevant, are extracted here under:- “(3) The case of a Government Servant whose promotion, etc., has been deferred, should be reopened after disposal of the charges and appropriate orders should be passed on merits, i.e., (a) giving him his promotion as aforesaid if he was proved innocent and exonerated or acquitted of the charges and if there are no other adverse factors to be reckoned; or (b) denying him the promotion or giving him the promotion from a later date depending upon the nature of punishment and other factors to be reckoned, in other cases. In all such cases, the Heads of Department must take suo-moto action within 15 days from the date of issue of final orders in the department disciplinary case/criminal case. 5. In all such cases, the Heads of Department must take suo-moto action within 15 days from the date of issue of final orders in the department disciplinary case/criminal case. 5. If specific charges are framed or charge sheet is filed in the criminal case before actual promotion, the person concerned shall not be promoted notwithstanding the fact that his name has been included in the panel. The instructions in para (3) above will apply in his case thereafter.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even though an order of promotion was passed, since the order of promotion was yet to be given effect to and specific charges were framed against the first respondent in a departmental proceeding before the actual promotion, paragraph 5 of the aforesaid G.O. was applicable and on the basis of such G.O., the Commissioner has not allowed the first respondent to be relieved and thereafter he was not allowed to join the promotional post. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has submitted that since an order of promotion was already passed by the Government, it was not open to the subordinate officer, namely, the Commissioner, to with-hold the effect of such promotion by refusing to relieve the present Respondent No.1 and such action of the second petitioner was arbitrary. 7. It is rather unfortunate that the Tribunal had disposed of the matter at the stage of admission itself without giving adequate opportunity to the present petitioners to obtain instructions. In normal course, we would have remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to both the parties. However, since the Tribunal has become non-functional on account of non-posting of any Member, either judicial or administrative, the matter is being finalised on merits by us. 8. It is of course true that the name of the present Respondent No.1 was included in the panel for promotion and after about a month thereof, the Government issued order promoting him and giving him a posting in the promotional post. At that stage, charge-memo was issued against Respondent No.1 on the very same day on which the Government had passed the order and since the present second petitioner, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, did not relieve Respondent No.1, he could not join the post. At that stage, charge-memo was issued against Respondent No.1 on the very same day on which the Government had passed the order and since the present second petitioner, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, did not relieve Respondent No.1, he could not join the post. Thereafter, the Tribunal has given a direction to the Commissioner to relieve Respondent No.1 mainly on the ground that the Commissioner should not have flouted the order passed by the Government. 9. In a very technical sense, the order passed by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be inappropriate because no subordinate authority has the competence to flout the order passed by the superior authority and in normal course it was the duty of the Commissioner to implement the order passed by the Government. However, it is apparent that after the Commissioner issued charge-memo and brought the entire facts to the notice of the State Government, the State Government has also issued a direction for taking action against the persons responsible for not bringing the relevant facts to the knowledge of the authorities concerned at the time of preparation of the panel for promotion. In other words, the State Government has apparently ratified the action of the Commissioner. This is further apparent from the fact that the writ petition has been filed by the State Government as well as the Commissioner challenging the order of the Tribunal. 10. No employee has a right to claim promotion as a matter of right or a matter of course. However, the employee has the right to be considered for promotion, if he is eligible. In the present case, the petitioners are relying upon paragraph 5 of G.O.Ms.No.368, which has already been extracted. As per paragraph 5, if charges are framed, obviously in a departmental proceeding, or charge sheet is filed in a criminal case “before actual promotion”, the person concerned shall not be promoted notwithstanding the fact that his name has been included in the panel. In normal course, a person can be said to have been promoted only if such person joins the promotional post. Merely because name of a person is included in the panel, it cannot be said that such a person is promoted. In normal course, a person can be said to have been promoted only if such person joins the promotional post. Merely because name of a person is included in the panel, it cannot be said that such a person is promoted. Similarly, even if an order is passed promoting a person, such order of promotion takes effect only with effect from the date on which the person joins the post. A person draws his salary in the promotional post only with effect from the date on which he joins the promotional post and not from the date on which his name has been included in the panel or even from the date on which the actual order of promotion was passed. Understood in the aforesaid sense, it is obvious that in the present case, the charges were framed against Respondent No.1 “before his actual promotion.” Since Respondent No.1 had not yet joined the post, it cannot be said that the process of promotion, so far as Respondent No.1 is concerned, was complete. It is of course true that in the normal circumstances it was the duty of the Commissioner to relieve Respondent No.1 to enable him to join the promotional post. If the action of the present second petitioner in not relieving the present Respondent No.1 would not have been approved by the State Government, obviously, a further direction would have been issued by the State Government allowing the present Respondent No.1 to join in the promotional post. On the other hand, as already indicated, the State Government has not only ratified the action of the present second petitioner but also contemplated in taking action against other persons who were responsible for not bringing the relevant facts to the notice of the authorities concerned. 11. Since paragraph 5 of the G.O.Ms.No.368 is applicable according to us, Respondent No.1 cannot claim that he must be relieved to join the promotional post. In paragraph 5 itself it is made clear that in such an event when specific charges are framed, the person shall not be promoted notwithstanding the fact that his name has been included in the panel. Instructions in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid G.O. would apply to his case thereafter. 12. Therefore, according to us, the question as to whether Respondent No.1 should be promoted with retrospective effect would obviously depend upon the result of the departmental enquiry. Instructions in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid G.O. would apply to his case thereafter. 12. Therefore, according to us, the question as to whether Respondent No.1 should be promoted with retrospective effect would obviously depend upon the result of the departmental enquiry. It goes without saying that after completion of the enquiry, necessary orders would be passed by the appropriate authorities. If Respondent No.1 is exonerated, it is obvious that he would be deemed to have been promoted with retrospective effect. 13. Since the promotional order passed has been kept in abeyance, it is necessary that the departmental proceedings against Respondent No.1, if it is not finalised, should be finalised as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present order. 14. Subject to the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.