Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent vide order dated 13.10.2003 made in O.A.No.6991 of 1997, confirming the order of the first respondent relating to para 2 of G.O.(D) No.258, dated 3.6.1997 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to forthwith include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Deputy Collector for the year 1992 with all attendant and monetary benefits.) Elipe Dharma Rao, J. This writ petition is filed against the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.6991 of 1997, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is found to be not eligible to include his name in the promotion panel for the year 1992 since he has not completed the one year training as Tahsildar and therefore, he cannot be promoted as Deputy Collector. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he joined as Junior Assistant in the Revenue Department on 12.4.1965, promoted to various stages and finally he was promoted as Tahsildar and joined as such on 27.12.1990. But, when the names were sent for, to include in the panel for promoting to the post of Deputy Collector, due to some charges levelled against him, the District Collector directed him orally not to attend the training classes and accordingly, in obedience of the oral instructions given by the District Collector, the petitioner went on leave. Subsequently, he was exonerated from the charges levelled against him, but his name was not included in the panel of the year 1992, for the reason that he has not completed the training. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1796 of 1996 before the Tribunal to direct the first respondent to include his name in the panel for promotion as Deputy Collector for the year 1992 with all benefits and the Tribunal by the order dated 2.9.1996 has held that the petitioner had a definite right to be considered for inclusion in the panel for the year 1992 and if found fit, he shall be given promotion pursuant to the inclusion in the panel for the year 1992 and directed the first respondent for including his name in the panel for promotion as Deputy Collector for the year 1992 with all attendant and monetary benefits. 3. 3. It would also be relevant to state that the post of Deputy Collector is a selection post. In pursuance of the above order of the Tribunal, G.O.Ms.No.258, dated 3.6.1997 was passed. As per this order, the petitioner’s name has been included in the panel of 1993-94 and he has been placed in the said panel above one Mr.V.Natarajan and below one Mr.V.Ramasamy consequent of inclusion of his name in the panel of 1993-94, his name has been deleted in the 1995-96 panel. Aggrieved of the above said order, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal against the inclusion of his name in the panel for the year 1993-94 instead of 1992 on the ground that he has completed his training period and more over, he was exonerated from the charges levelled against him in the year 1993. But, the Tribunal, accepting the contention of the Department that he has not completed the one year training as Tahsildar in the year 1992 and thus he was not found to be suitable to be included in the panel for the year 1992, has dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition. 4. We have heard both the counsel. 5. After going through the materials placed on record, we find that the petitioner could not complete his training, because of the oral instructions imparted to him by the District Collector to go on leave, as there was disciplinary proceeding pending against him. But, ultimately, he was exonerated from the charges framed against him in the disciplinary proceedings. But, however, his name was not considered to be included in the panel for the year 1992 on the ground that he has not completed the training of one year. But, it is settled principle of law that once the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him, after conclusion of a full-fledged enquiry, it is to be construed that no charges are pending against him. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have included the name of the petitioner in the panel of the year 1992. Moreover, we are not able to find any reason as to under what circumstances, the District Collector has given oral instructions to the petitioner to go on leave. However, in obedience to the directions of the superior officer, the petitioner went on leave and thereafter he joined duty. Moreover, we are not able to find any reason as to under what circumstances, the District Collector has given oral instructions to the petitioner to go on leave. However, in obedience to the directions of the superior officer, the petitioner went on leave and thereafter he joined duty. Therefore, we find no justification in the reasoning offered by the Tribunal for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel for the year 1992. If no instructions were given by the District Collector, to go on leave, the petitioner might have completed his training and became eligible to be included in the panel of the year 1992. Further more, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible to be included in the panel of the year 1992 itself. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the first respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of the year 1992 and pass appropriate orders accordingly. Since it is reported that the petitioner is now retired from service, the first respondent is directed to settle his retiral benefits, taking into consideration the fact that his name has been included in the panel of the year 1992, within three months. With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.