Judgment Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. .2. It is stated by the petitioner that he was, initially, selected for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, through the employment exchange, on merits, and he had joined in service, on 3. 1974. He was promoted to the post of Primary School Headmaster, on 18. 1982 and he has been continuing as such in Idayapatti Panchayat Union Elementary School. As per G.O.Ms.No.400, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 25. 1995, all the Secondary Grade Teachers were made eligible for promotion to the post of Middle School Head Master and the said Government Order is to be deemed to have come into force, with effect from 25. 95. 3. It has been further stated that the qualification for the post of Middle School Head master is a degree with B.Ed. The petitioner had passed B.Ed. in the month of February, 1995, having written the examination, on 26. 94. The date of the last examination or test has to be taken into account for the granting of incentives to the petitioner, as well as for further promotions. The petitioner has further stated that the panel for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster was notified in the year 1995. It was stated that the petitioner had not been qualified for being included in the panel, as on 1. 95. However, the Government Order, making the Secondary Grade Assistants eligible, has been notified in G.O.Ms.No.400, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 25. 1995, and it must be deemed to have come into force only with effect from the said date. Therefore, the candidates included in the panel and promoted thereafter, were not eligible to be included in the panel, as on 1. 95. 4. It has also been stated that, before the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.400, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 25. 1995, was issued, only the Primary School Headmasters and the Tamil Pandits were eligible and not the Secondary Grade Assistants, as the scale of pay for both the Tamil Pandits and the Primary School Headmasters was Rs.1400-2600 and the scale of pay of the Secondary Grade Assistants was Rs.1200-2040. However, after the passing of the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.400, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 25. However, after the passing of the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.400, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 25. 1995, the Secondary Grade Teachers were also made eligible for promotion to the post of Secondary Grade Headmaster. The said Government Order must be deemed to have come into force only with effect from 25. 95 and on the date of drawal of the panel, on 1. 95, the Government Order was not in force. Therefore, relying upon the said Government Order, the Secondary Grade Assistants ought not to have been promoted to the post of Secondary Grade Headmaster. 5. It has been further stated that the name of the petitioner should have been included in the panel for promotion to the post of Secondary Grade Headmaster, drawn as on 1. 95, as he was fully qualified to be promoted to the said post on the said date. However, his name was not included in the panel for promotion. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 13. 95, to the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Pudukottai, requesting him to include his name in the panel drawn on 1. 1995. However, the respondents have not taken any steps to include the name of the petitioner in the panel drawn on 1. 95, along with the others, who have been included in the said panel. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.400, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 25. 1995, cannot affect the panel drawn on 1. 1995. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.2109 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.27655 of 2006. 6. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the applicant had passed B.Ed. degree examination held in the month of May, 1994, from the Annamalai University. The last date of the practical examination was 26. 1994. The provisional certificate had been issued by the University, on 22. 1995. After the petitioner had submitted the provisional certificate to the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Pudukkottai, in the month of June, 1995, the necessary entries had been made in the service register of the individual, on 30.6.1995. The Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Pudukottai, had prepared the panel for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster, on 1. 95. 1995. After the petitioner had submitted the provisional certificate to the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Pudukkottai, in the month of June, 1995, the necessary entries had been made in the service register of the individual, on 30.6.1995. The Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Pudukottai, had prepared the panel for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster, on 1. 95. As per the executive instructions issued by the second respondent in his proceedings, in R.C.No.61356/ED/89, dated 112. 1992, there were no B.Ed. Grade Assistants/Tamil Pandits, appointed prior to 6. 88, and no qualified Primary School Headmasters to hold the post of Middle School Headmasters, on 1. 95, in Pudukkottai Union. Therefore, the panel of B.Ed. qualified senior most Secondary Grade Teachers, working in Pudukkottai Union, as on 1. 95, was prepared by the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Pudukkottai, and was submitted to the third respondent. On the strength of the panel so received, orders were issued by the third respondent promoting the respondents 4 and 5 to the post of Middle School Headmaster. .7. The petitioner had preferred an appeal to the second respondent, on 28. 95. By an order, dated 210. 95, made in O.A.No.6452 of 1995, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 28. 95, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a specified period. Accordingly, the second respondent had examined the appeal preferred by the petitioner, as per the rules in force, and he had passed orders rejecting the claim of the petitioner, in his Proceedings Rc.No.32073/ED1/95, dated 21. 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred the present Original Application in O.A.No.2109 of 1996, against the orders passed by the second respondent. The request of the petitioner to include his name in the panel drawn, as on 1. 95 and to promote the petitioner as a Middle School Headmaster cannot be complied with as he was not declared to have passed B.Ed. degree examination on the crucial date, which is 1. 95. 8. The request of the petitioner to include his name in the panel drawn, as on 1. 95 and to promote the petitioner as a Middle School Headmaster cannot be complied with as he was not declared to have passed B.Ed. degree examination on the crucial date, which is 1. 95. 8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent without properly considering the various factual, as well as legal aspects, relating to the issues raised by the petitioner. The non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Secondary Grade Headmaster, is based on the fact that at the time the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Pudukkottai, had prepared the panel for promotion to the post of Secondary Grade Headmaster, the petitioner had not been declared to have passed B.Ed., degree examination on the crucial date, which is 1. 95. However, it is clear that the second respondent had not taken note of Ruling 2 of Fundamental Rule 26 before he had passed the impugned order, dated 296. 9. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 21. 96, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to decide the issue, afresh, taking note of Ruling 2 of Fundamental Rule 26, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed, with the above directions. No costs.