Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Pro.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.11979/Pa.A2/2003 dated 012. 2005 and Rc.No.19745/E.2/2007 dated 06.09.2007 and direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner as Inspector of Sericulture from 1981 onwards and to fix the seniority in the post on par with his Juniors i.e. S.No.46(a) and to further direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner as Assistant Director, Sericulture w.e.f. 1981 onwards. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Inspector of Sericulture on 11. 1975 and has completed 4 years of service as on 12. 1979. At that time, since there was urgent need to fill up Asst. Inspector of Sericulture, Petitioner was temporarily promoted as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture w.e.f. 12. 1979. Petitioner has filed O.A.No.4126/91 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of the service rules insisted upon minimum 5 years of service for non-graduates for promotion from the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture to the post of Inspector of Sericulture whereas no such restriction for graduates. Observing that the rule prescribing 5 years of service for non-graduates for promotion is discriminatory, TAT has set aside the rule by its order dated 12. 2003. .(ii) Based on the Tribunals order, Government issued necessary amendment for the rule and eliminated the discrimination between the graduate Asst. Inspector of Sericulture and non-graduate Asst. Inspector of Sericulture. Government in G.O.Ms.No.128, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles & Khadi (G1) department dated 27. 2005 issued instructions to take necessary action to revise the panel as per rules. (iii) Grievance of the Petitioner is that after the receipt of the said G.O., Director of Sericulture have not issued the revised seniority of the Petitioner in the post of Inspector of Sericulture based on the amended rules and the Petitioner has not been placed on par with his Juniors. Earlier, Petitioner has filed W.P.No.23111/2007 challenging the order of 1st Respondent and that Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law. (iv) 1st Respondent rejected the representation of the Petitioner stating that there is no need to change the seniority of the Petitioner in the post of Inspector of Sericulture from Sl.86. (iv) 1st Respondent rejected the representation of the Petitioner stating that there is no need to change the seniority of the Petitioner in the post of Inspector of Sericulture from Sl.86. According to the Petitioner, Respondents should have fixed seniority of the Petitioner in the post of Inspector of Sericulture in Sl.No.50(A) and based on that, 1st Respondent should have promoted the Petitioner as Asst. Director of Sericulture as his Juniors were promoted as Asst. Director of Sericulture. .3. Respondents have filed counter stating that as per Special rules prescribed for the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture prior to 20.12.1983 for promotion to the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture from the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture, service for a period of not less than 5 years of Junior Inspector of Sericulture was necessary. Petitioner was regularly appointed as Junior Inspector of Sericulture on 11. 1975 FN. According to the Respondents due to urgent need for filling up the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture, the Petitioner was temporarily promoted as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture under Rule 39(a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State & Subordinate Service Rules w.e.f. 12. 1979 even prior to fulfilling the required qualification i.e., completion of 5 years of service in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture. Thereafter, his services in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture was regularized on 11. 1980 i.e., after completion of 5 years of service from the date of regularization in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture as prescribed in special rules. Accordingly his seniority was fixed in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture and he was promoted as Inspector of Sericulture on 210. 1985. 4. On behalf of the Petitioner, Senior Counsel Mr.P.Jayaraman contended that as per the amended rule, the date of temporary promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture i.e. on 12. 1979 is to be taken into consideration for promoting him as Inspector of Sericulture. Placing reliance upon AIR 1993 SC 2462 [ Kailash Chandra Rajawat v. Union of India and another] and (2005) 4 MLJ 61 [M.Mouttoucannou and others v. Union of India and others], learned Senior counsel contended that services in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture from 12. 1979 cannot be ignored. Placing reliance upon AIR 1993 SC 2462 [ Kailash Chandra Rajawat v. Union of India and another] and (2005) 4 MLJ 61 [M.Mouttoucannou and others v. Union of India and others], learned Senior counsel contended that services in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture from 12. 1979 cannot be ignored. It was also urged that Government has carried out the amendment to calculate two years of service from the date of service and not from the date of regularization and while so, the order of the Respondents refusing to fix the seniority of the Petitioner on par with his Juniors is arbitrary and illegal. 5. Drawing attention of the Court to Service rules, Mr.N. Senthilkumar, learned AGP (Writs) has submitted that prior to 1983, 5 years of service was required for Junior Inspector of Sericulture to become Asst. Inspector of Sericulture. Learned AGP (Writs) further submitted that Petitioner was temporarily promoted as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture w.e.f. 12. 1979 even prior to the completion of 5 years of service in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture was regularized on 11. 1980 and that date of regularization of the Petitioner has to be reckoned for fixing his seniority. Learned AGP would further submit that having regard to the date of regularization of the Petitioner in Asst. Inspector of Sericulture as 11. 1980, his name cannot be inserted in between Sl.No.50 and 51. .6. Petitioner was regularly appointed as Junior Inspector of Sericulture on 11. 1975 FN and he has completed 4 years of service as on 12. 1979. As per special rules prescribed in Rule 39 (f) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, prior to 20.12.1983, for promotion to the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture from the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture, the services for a period not less than 5 years as Junior Inspector of Sericulture was necessary. Petitioner was temporarily promoted as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture w.e.f. 12. 1979 even prior to completion of 5 years of service in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture. After completion of 5 years, Petitioners services in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture was regularised w.e.f. 11. 1980. As and when his seniority became due for promotion, Petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Sericulture on 210. 1985. 7. 1979 even prior to completion of 5 years of service in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture. After completion of 5 years, Petitioners services in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture was regularised w.e.f. 11. 1980. As and when his seniority became due for promotion, Petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Sericulture on 210. 1985. 7. Earlier, Petitioner has filed O.A.No.4126/1991 before Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging rule 6 which insisted upon minimum 5 years of service for non-graduates for promotion from the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture whereas there was no restriction in case of graduates. 8. The post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture could be filled either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by transfer. A Junior Inspector of Sericulture is being promoted to the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture on his completion of minimum service of five years in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture. A direct recruit who joins in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture also performs same duties. In all respects, there is no difference between the promotee Asst. Inspector of Sericulture and direct recruits to the said post. Observing that when duties performed by promotee Asst. Inspector of Sericulture and direct recruits to the said post and that there could not be difference between the promotees and direct recruits, TAT has set aside the rule prescribing minimum 5 years of service for non-graduates for promotion from the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture to the post of Inspector of Sericulture. 9. Petitioner was regularly appointed as Junior Inspector of Sericulture on 11. 1975. As per rule 39, for promotion to the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture from the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture prior to 20.12.1983, services for a period not less than 5 years of Junior Inspector of Sericulture was necessary. .10. According to the Petitioner, there is no mandatory requirement for completion of 5 years in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture for being promoted as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture. Placing reliance upon AIR 1993 SC 2462 [ Kailash Chandra Rajawat v. Union of India and another] and (2005) 4 MLJ 61 [M.Mouttoncannou and others v. Union of India and others], the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that temporary services of the Petitioner in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture from 12. Inspector of Sericulture. Placing reliance upon AIR 1993 SC 2462 [ Kailash Chandra Rajawat v. Union of India and another] and (2005) 4 MLJ 61 [M.Mouttoncannou and others v. Union of India and others], the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that temporary services of the Petitioner in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture from 12. 1979 cannot be ignored and that Petitioner ought to have been regularized in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture even from 12. 1979. 11. In AIR 1993 SC 2462 [Kailash Chandra Rajawat v. Union of India and another], the Honble Supreme Court has held that the period spent by the appellant, as temporary duty, prior to his regularisation was required to be taken into consideration for considering his eligibility for promotion and when so taken, the appellant possessed the requisite experience as a Trains Clerk for his eligibility to promotion as Goods Guard C. As pointed out, for promotion as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture, Petitioner must essentially have 5 years of service in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture. Taking into account the temporary duty prior to Petitioners regularisation in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture would be in violation of Tamil Nadu Industries Subordinate Service Rules. There is no force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that temporary duty has to be taken into consideration for considering his eligibility for promotion. .12. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed much reliance upon the order of TAT in O.A.No.4126/1991. The order in O.A.No.4126/1991 is in respect of promotion to the post of Inspector of Sericulture. As per the orders of TAT, Government issued amendment in G.O.Ms.No.127, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles & Khadi (G1) department dated 27. 2005 to the concerned special rules eliminating the discrimination for promotion as Inspector of Sericulture from the holders of the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture between graduates and non-graduates as follows:- Inspector of Sericulture-By promotion from Asst. Inspector of Sericulture with service for a period of not less than two years as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture. 13. For the post of Inspector of Sericulture, feeder category is Asst. Inspector of Sericulture. Point falling for consideration is when the petitioner became Asst. Inspector of Sericulture from which date his service is to be reckoned in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture. 13. For the post of Inspector of Sericulture, feeder category is Asst. Inspector of Sericulture. Point falling for consideration is when the petitioner became Asst. Inspector of Sericulture from which date his service is to be reckoned in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector of Sericulture. 14. As per Tamil Nadu Industries Subordinate Service Rules, prior to 1983, for the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture by promotion from Junior Inspector of Sericulture, service for a period of not less than 5 years in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture was essential. Rule was amended only in 1983 reducing 5 years as 2 years. Relevant rule reads as under:- Class Category Qualifications 2) Asst. Inspector of Sericulture a) By promotion from Junior Inspector of Sericulture. 1. Minimum General Educational Qualification as specified in schedule I to General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services or the Secondary School Leaving Certificate with declaration of eligibility for college Course study. 2. Service for a period of not less than two years as Junior Inspector of Sericulture; (Service for a period of not less than 5 years was reduced as 2 years in G.O.Ms.No.1544, Industries Department, dated 20.12.83) 3. Should have passed Account Test for Subordinate Officers, Part-I 15. As seen from the above, the rule reducing 5 years as 2 years came into effect only by the above G.O.Ms.No.1544, Industries Department dated 20.83. Prior to 1983, for promotion as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture, Junior Inspector of Sericulture ought to have completed 5 years of service. Petitioner completed 5 years of service in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture only on 11. 1980 on which date his service as Asst. Inspector of Sericulture was regularized. And Petitioner had been placed in seniority as per his date of regularization in the post of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture. While so, Petitioner cannot seek for placing himself as Sl.No.46(A) in the seniority list. 16. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.