Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had started his career as a B.T. Assistant in the year 1957. He was promoted as a Headmaster in the year 1963. Since the petitioner belongs to `B Wing, basing on G.O.Ms.No.98, his promotion to the post of District Educational Officer was not considered as per the correct seniority. Though the petitioner was eligible for promotion subsequent to the decision of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, made in O.A.No.46 of 1988 (batch), he was not considered for promotion on the ground that he had crossed 53 years of age. Hence, the petitioner had filed an original application in O.A.No.1868 of 1992, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. Based on the orders of the Tribunal, dated 25. 1993, the petitioner was promoted as a District Educational Officer and he had assumed charge as such, on 6. 1993. 3. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had made a representation to the second respondent in the month of August 1993, requesting for promotion to the post of District Educational Officer, retrospectively, and for the post of Chief Educational Officer. However, by an order of the second respondent, dated 23. 1995, the petitioner had been promoted, with effect from 92. The petitioner ought to have been promoted as Chief Educational Officer, with effect from 10. 1992, when his immediate junior Radharamani was promoted. 4. The petitioner had also submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.485, Education Department, dated 15. 1993, the petitioners name should have been included for promotion to the post of District Educational Officer for the year 1989-90. However, according to the order, dated 23. 95, the petitioners service in the cadre of District Educational Officer has been regularised only with effect from 3. 1992. By an order, dated 19. 1992, issued in G.O.Ms.No.854, ten incumbents were promoted as Chief Educational Officers. The petitioner had not been considered for such promotion only due to the mistake committed by the respondent Department. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.1230 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.28824 of 2006. 5. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.1230 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.28824 of 2006. 5. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the post of District Educational Officer is governed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational Service and classified as Class IV post in the said service. According to the sub-rule (b) under Rule 5, in the said Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational Service, persons who had exceeded 55 years of age, as on 1st March of the particular year, would not be considered for promotion to the post of District Educational Officer. 6. It has also been stated that by an order, dated 7. 92, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had issued directions in O.A.No.1455 of 1992 etc., to draw a panel for the post of District Educational Officer for the years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91, taking into account the crucial date, which is the 1st of March and to promote the eligible persons as District Educational Officers. Based on the directions issued by the Tribunal, the petitioner was included in the panel for the post of District Educational Officer for the year 1989-90, in G.O.Ms.No.485, Education, dated 15. 1993, and promoted as a District Educational Officer by G.O.Ms.No.527, Education, dated 25. 1993, and the petitioner had joined the post on 6. 1993. He retired from service on 38. 1993, on attaining the age of superannuation. Even though the petitioner had assumed charge of the post of District Educational Officer, on 6. 1993, he was deemed to have assumed charge of the post, with effect from 3. 92, since his junior had actually joined the said post on 92. When a panel was drawn in the month of January 1994 in G.O.Ms.No.30, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 1. 1994, for the post of Chief Educational Officer, the petitioner was not included in the panel, since he had retired in the month of August, 1993. In such circumstances, the petitioners claim for retrospective promotion deserves no consideration. 7. When a panel was drawn in the month of January 1994 in G.O.Ms.No.30, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 1. 1994, for the post of Chief Educational Officer, the petitioner was not included in the panel, since he had retired in the month of August, 1993. In such circumstances, the petitioners claim for retrospective promotion deserves no consideration. 7. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner, dated 28. 1993, is directed to be disposed of by the second respondent, on merits, within a specified period, in view of G.O.(Ms) No.130, School Education (A1) Department, dated 8. 2006 and considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Teachers Association Vs. Association of the Heads of the Government (B Wing) High and Higher Secondary Schools and others ( AIR 1998 SC 2267 ). 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, without going into the merits of case, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 28. 1993, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been disposed of till date, in view of G.O.(Ms) No.130, School Education (A1) Department, dated 8. 2006, and considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Teachers Association Vs. Association of the Heads of the Government (B Wing) High and Higher Secondary Schools and others ( AIR 1998 SC 2267 ). The petitioner is directed to furnish to the second respondent a copy of the representation, dated 28. 1993, the Government Order and the decision cited above, along with a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.