Judgment :- 1. By consent, the writ petition itself has been taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioners are presently working as Head Constables. In order to fill up five posts of Sub Inspectors of Police ear-marked for the promotees, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpet Range, who is the second respondent herein, conducted range promotion board and the same was done as per the memo. issued by the Chief Officer in R.C.No.10138/NGB V(2)/2000 dated 15. 2000. The final list was drawn without including the names of the petitioners. Only five persons were included and they were all promoted. Thereafter, the petitioners made their representations to the second respondent stating that the number of vacancies in the range for the post of Sub-Inspectors are more and so they may be considered for promotion as against the said vacancies. 3. On considering the said representations made by the petitioners, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpet Range, by proceedings in C.No.A1/11148/2000 dated 20.7.2001 sought for permission from the Director General of Police, the first respondent herein, to include the names of 22 more Head Constables in Armed Reserve of Chengalpet Range, who have secured highest total marks, i.e. above 69 marks in the written test, drill and viva voce test, in the C list of the Head Constables for promotion as Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police, Armed Reserve for the year 19992000 in the existing 22 vacancies of the Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police in Chengalpet Range as a special case in the interest of welfare of the Head Constables, Armed Reserve, Chengalpet Range. In the said letter, the second respondent had stated that there were 22 more vacancies in the district, out of which, 21 are ear-marked for direct recruits and one was for the rank promotee. 4. The above said suggestion made by the second respondent was not considered by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioners have filed O.A.Nos.6232 of 2002, 278, 462 and 678 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to consider them also for regular promotion to the posts of Sub-Inspectors, Armed Reserve. However, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by a common order dated 4. 2003, dismissed all the original applications. Thereafter, challenging the same, the third petitioner herein filed W.P.No.20716 of 2003 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 27. However, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by a common order dated 4. 2003, dismissed all the original applications. Thereafter, challenging the same, the third petitioner herein filed W.P.No.20716 of 2003 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 27. 2003 disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the submissions made by the petitioners. But, this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Director General of Police, who was directed to consider such representation if filed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. Subsequently, the petitioners made representations to the first respondent herein. 5. After considering all such representations, the first respondent, by his proceedings in Rc.No.47409/NGB V(2)/2002 dated 11. 2004 rejected the request of the petitioners. Challenging the said order of the first respondent, the petitioners filed O.A.No.1132 of 2004 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on the abolition of the said Tribunal, the said O.A. was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.2691 of 2005 and that is how the present writ petition is now before this Court for disposal. 6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would be that during the year 1991 when Range Promotion Board was conducted to draw C list of Head Constables eligible for promotion as Sub Inspectors in Chengalpet District, a specified number of people were included in the C list as against the estimated vacancy and all of them were promoted. Subsequently, there were similar representations made by the persons who were not included in the list requesting to promote them also since the vacancies were larger in numbers. But their names were not so included. Thereafter, the aggrieved persons approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the first respondent to consider their requests. Based on the same, the D.I.G. Of Police permitted to draw a further C list and to promote them all as against the additional vacancies, which existed. Relying on the said decision taken by the first respondent, the learned Senior Counsel submits that what happened in the year 1991 should be followed in 1999 also. Based on the same, the D.I.G. Of Police permitted to draw a further C list and to promote them all as against the additional vacancies, which existed. Relying on the said decision taken by the first respondent, the learned Senior Counsel submits that what happened in the year 1991 should be followed in 1999 also. He would submit that in 1999 also, there were additional vacancies and hence as requested by the petitioners, they should have been included in the C list and promoted as Sub-Inspectors. 7. But, I am not able to accept the said contentions of the learned senior counsel for the following reasons:- In 1991, according to the respondents, the estimated vacancy was not properly done. That is why the vacancies were later estimated properly and as against the exact number of vacancies, C list was drawn additionally and persons were promoted. But that is not the case in the year 1999. Even in the letter of recommendation made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police of Chengai Range, it could be seen that the Range Board was conducted as against the exact estimated vacancies. Subsequently, the petitioners made representations to promote them as against the 22 vacancies. The second respondent found that out of the 22 vacancies, 21 were ear-marked for direct recruits i.e. 60:40 ratio prescribed in the Rule and one post was ear-marked for the rank promotee. The Deputy Inspector General of Police requested the Director General of Police to fill up the posts ear-marked for the direct recruits by promoting within the rank promotees. However, the first respondent had stated that if such promotion is granted, it would amount to violation of the relevant Rules. Therefore, the first respondent had rightly rejected such request. 8. In my considered opinion, even assuming that any violation was done in the year 1991 to fill up the vacancies ear-marked for direct recruits by promoting rank promotees, this Court cannot direct the first respondent to commit yet another violation this time also to fill up the vacancies ear-marked for direct recruits, by giving promotion to the rank promotees. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the order of the first respondent, rejecting the recommendation of the second respondent, cannot be found fault with. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the order of the first respondent, rejecting the recommendation of the second respondent, cannot be found fault with. In my considered view, it is far beyond the scope of the powers conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the administrative authority to act in a manner violating the Rules. Of course, it is the wisdom of the Government to consider special cases and to amend the Rules then and there under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. But, this Court can neither pressurize the Government to amend the Rules nor to deviate the Rules. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.