Judgment :- The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 8. 1981. Thereafter, the petitioners service was regularized. The petitioner had passed all the tests necessary for being promoted to the next higher post of Assistant. Even though the petitioner had passed the tests in the year 1986, his juniors had been sent for the Survey and Settlement Training, which was for duration of 45 days. The petitioner was sent for the training only on 28. 1992. The crucial date for preparing of the panel for the post of Assistant was 13. 1992. As the petitioner was not qualified on the said date, his name is not included in the said panel, though some of his juniors, who had been sent for training earlier, had been included in the list and they were also promoted as Assistants. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.2770 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.28410 of 2006. 2. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant, on 8. 1981, through the employment exchange, on temporary basis, as per G.O.Ms.No.996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29. 1985. All the persons who had been temporarily appointed, including the petitioner, were regularized in service. For want of vacancy, the petitioner was transferred to Rural Development Department, Nilgiris District. The petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the transfer and an order of interim stay had been passed. Since the order of interim stay had been granted, he was absorbed in the Revenue Department, Thanjavur District. Meanwhile, the District Administration proposed to draw Assistants list for the year 1992. The crucial date for preparation of the list was 15th March, 1992. The Junior Assistants who had undergone Survey and Settlement Training, passed the Revenue Tests Part I to III and completed the probation in the lower category and who had also completed the one year Taluk Service before the crucial date, were considered be included in the list for the year 1992. The petitioner was not qualified for being included in the list of Assistants for the year 1992 as he had not undergone the Survey and Settlement Training as on 13. 1992. The petitioner was not qualified for being included in the list of Assistants for the year 1992 as he had not undergone the Survey and Settlement Training as on 13. 1992. The petitioner was fully qualified only on 10. 1992 whereas the crucial date for the drawal of the list was 13. 1992. Due to the transfer of the petitioner, his Service Register was not available in the Taluk Office of Needamangalam in which he was working. Therefore, verification could not be made with regard to the petitioners qualifications for being sent for the Survey and Settlement Training. 3. It was further stated that an appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration had been rejected, on 27. 1993. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Government had also been rejected, on 12. 1996. In such circumstances, the claims of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief’s prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is clear that the petitioner was not qualified to be included in the list of Assistants for the year 1992, since he had not undergone the requisite Survey and Settlement Training as on the crucial date i.e., 13. 1992. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the failure on the part of the concerned authorities in sending the petitioner for the survey and settlement training was not due to administrative reasons but was based on extraneous circumstances. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner cannot be sustained. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.