Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he has started his career as an Additional Plant Projection Assistant in the cadre of Agricultural Officer, in the year 1970. The next avenue of promotion for the petitioner is the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture. As per the seniority of the petitioner, his name should have been included in the impugned panel. However, by an order, dated 2. 95, he was informed that his name had not been recommended, as he was not found fit. Since the impugned panel is contrary to the rules, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.4584 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.16070 of 2006. 3. The writ petitioner has prayed that this Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated 2. 95, and to quash the same in so far as it relates to the applicant and to further direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Assistant Director of Agriculture, in the appropriate place. 4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.77, Agriculture (AA.1) Department, dated 2. 95, had approved the names of 68 candidates as recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee, having found them fit for regular appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension) in the order of preference for the year 1994–95. In the said panel, the name of the petitioner had been considered along with the names of his seniors and juniors with reference to the Special Rules framed for the Tamilnadu Agricultural Extension Service and it was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the name of the petitioner and it had recommended that he was not found fit for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension), for the year 1994-95, as he was awarded with the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect, ordered in proceedings No.A.4337/90, dated 4. 91, issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Omalur, Salem District, for not handing over the Seed Processing Unit Register. Further, there were certain adverse remarks earned by the petitioner, as revealed through his personal file for the periods from 4. 90 to 7. 90 and from 4. 91 to 33. 92. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had pointed out the statements made on behalf of the respondents, in paragraph 7 of the reply affidavit filed on their behalf. In paragraph 7 of the reply affidavit, it has been stated that the applicant has preferred an appeal, dated 14. 95, requesting the Government to include his name in the list of persons fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension) for the year 199495, approved in G.O.Ms.No.77, Agriculture (AA1) Department, dated 2. 95, and the said appeal preferred by the petitioner is under active consideration of the Government. 6. In view of the said statement made on behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if this Court directs the first respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner, dated 14. 95, and to dispose of the same, on merits, within a specified period. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the first respondent is directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner, dated 14. 95 and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.