Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the orders of the 1st Respondent dated 11. 2006 and to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to prepare the seniority list for appointment of Assistant Executive Engineers starting from the year 2001-2002 in accordance with rule 4(a) of General rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- .(i) Petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers to look after the fishing Harbour works of Fisheries department under State Port Department. Petitioners along with others (Public Works Department) were transferred to the newly formed Engineering Wing comprising one Superintending Engineer, two Executive Engineers, seven Asst. Executive Engineers, 20 Junior Engineers constituted under the Director of Fisheries in G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 11. 1983. By the order dated 02. 1983, the Director of Fisheries ordered that the staff transferred to Fisheries Department in the said G.O. will be treated as departmental transferees, and also ordered that their service conditions would be governed by the service rules of their parent department. Petitioners were working in Fisheries Department from 11. 1983 and are being governed by the State Port Department Service Rules. They have become the Junior Engineers of the Fisheries Department. According to the Petitioners, vacancies in the post of Asst. Executive Engineers (AEEs) have accrued during the year 2001 itself. According to the Petitioners as per rule 4(a) of General rule, if panel of AEEs been drawn every year, Petitioners ought to have been promoted earlier with higher scale of pay. .(ii) Petitioners mainly relied upon G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 11. 1983 wherein Petitioners were ordered to be governed by the service rules of Port department in the Proceedings dated 02. 1983 and thereafter, Petitioners continued in Fisheries department for 24 years. According to the Petitioners, they belong to Fisheries department only and they ought to have been appointed as AEEs by drawing panel every year as per rule 4(a) of General rules. According to the Petitioners, Respondents are estopped from taking a stand contrary to the G.O. dated 11. 1983. According to the Petitioners, the impugned letter dated 11. 2006 that the Petitioners were not permanently absorbed in Fisheries department is totally a false statement and unsustainable. 3. Respondents have filed counter stating that G.O.Ms.No.37, Forest and Fisheries Department, dated 11. According to the Petitioners, Respondents are estopped from taking a stand contrary to the G.O. dated 11. 1983. According to the Petitioners, the impugned letter dated 11. 2006 that the Petitioners were not permanently absorbed in Fisheries department is totally a false statement and unsustainable. 3. Respondents have filed counter stating that G.O.Ms.No.37, Forest and Fisheries Department, dated 11. 1983 issued orders for formation of an Engineering Wing in Fisheries Department with the personnel drafted from State Public Works Department and State Port Department. According to the Respondents, Director of Fisheries in Proceedings No.L1/9607/82-1 dated 02. 1983 ordered that the personnel drafted from State Public Works Department and State Port Department are treated as Departmental transferees and they will be governed by the service rules relating to their respective category in their parent department. According to the Respondents, Petitioners who were coming under the Tamil Nadu Port Subordinate Service (for short TNPSS) and subsequently absorbed as the employees of the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board (TNMB) w.e.f. 13. 1997, cannot seek for promotion as AEEs in Fisheries Dept. governed by the Special rules for Tamil Nadu Fisheries Service. According to the Respondents, Petitioners cannot claim any exclusive right for promotion to the post of AEEs in Fisheries Dept. since the service rules do not permit their appointment as AEEs in Fisheries Dept. 4. Mr. N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that Petitioners have been permanently absorbed in Fisheries Dept. and they ought to have been promoted as AEEs in Fisheries Dept. by drawing a panel including the names of Petitioners as per rule 4(a) of General rules. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that in the impugned letter, it was stated that Petitioners were not permanently absorbed in Fisheries Dept. and that their lien in services and seniority are maintained only in Port Dept. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that as per rule 4(a) of General rules, the department is to prepare a panel for promotion and the Petitioners are having their right to have panel prepared. It was further urged that Petitioners having been absorbed in Fisheries Dept. for 25 years have legitimate expectation that they are the employees of Fisheries Dept. and Petitioners have to be considered for promotion. 5. It was further urged that Petitioners having been absorbed in Fisheries Dept. for 25 years have legitimate expectation that they are the employees of Fisheries Dept. and Petitioners have to be considered for promotion. 5. Drawing attention of Court to formation of Maritime Board in the place of Fisheries Dept., Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned AGP (Writs) has submitted that service rules of Petitioners are governed only by service rules of parent department namely Maritime Board. Learned AGP (Writs) further submitted that Maritime Board has prepared a list way back in 2003 and the Petitioners are amongst the other employees who had exercised their option to serve in TNMB and accordingly absorbed in TNMB and Petitioners not being the employees of Fisheries Dept. cannot seek for promotion for preparation of panel and to promote the Petitioners as AEEs in Fisheries Dept. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions in this Writ Petition, the following points arise for consideration:- 1) Whether the Petitioners were permanently absorbed in Fisheries Dept. and whether the Petitioners ought to have been appointed as AEEs in Fisheries Dept. 2) Whether Petitioners are entitled to a direction from the Court for preparation of panel and approve the list of Jr. Engineers for appointment as AEEs in Fisheries Dept. 7. Originally the engineering works were executed by the State Public Works Dept. and subsequently transferred to State Port Dept. by orders in G.O.Ms.No.947, Forest & Fisheries Dept. dated 110. 1976. Petitioners were appointed by the State Port Dept. for execution of engineering works of Fishing Harbours. Subsequently, all the engineering works of fishing harbours were transferred to Fisheries Dept. along with the personnel drafted from State Public Works Dept. and State Port Dept, as per G.O.Ms.No.37, Forest and Fisheries Dept. dated 11. 1983 by forming a separate engineering wing in Fisheries Dept. While forming a separate engineering wing, it is specifically ordered that peronnel drawn from State PWD and State Port Dept. were grouped and brought under the administrative control of the Superintending Engineer, Engineering Wing, Fisheries Dept. with headquarters at Nagercoil. .8. The personnel drafted from State PWD and State Port Dept. were treated as departmental transferees. Para-8 of G.O.Ms.No.37, Forests & Fisheries Department, dated 11. 1983 reads as under:- ."8. were grouped and brought under the administrative control of the Superintending Engineer, Engineering Wing, Fisheries Dept. with headquarters at Nagercoil. .8. The personnel drafted from State PWD and State Port Dept. were treated as departmental transferees. Para-8 of G.O.Ms.No.37, Forests & Fisheries Department, dated 11. 1983 reads as under:- ."8. The personnel drafted from Public Works Department and Port Department mentioned in the Annexure-I and II to this proceedings are treated as departmental transferees and they will be governed by the Service Rules relating to the respective category in the parent Department. In respect of anyone being drafted from the Port Trusts or any other Corporate Body, they shall be governed by the Foreign Service terms and conditions applicable under F.R.110-114 and in such cases orders of the Government shall be obtained." 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners forcibly contended that Petitioners were always treated as employees of Fisheries Dept. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to the letter of Director, Fisheries Dept. in No.11270/M4/87 dated 23. 1988. The said letter is to the effect that 1st Petitioner Jeyaprakasam cannot be sent back to the State Port Dept. and that he has to be posted as Junior Engineer in Fisheries Dept. Engineering Division. Like wise, 3rd Petitioner Subbaraj was given selection grade in the post of Junior Engineer by the Proceedings of the Superintending Engineer, Fisheries Dept. in Mu.Mu.No.933/E1/99 dated 05. 1999. By the Proceedings in Rc.No.259/E1/2005-3 dated 01. 2006, 1st Petitioner and others were placed in full additional charge of the post of AEEs and they have been requested to take full additional charge in the post of AEEs in Fishing Harbour Project Circle. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that when the 1st Petitioner and other Junior Engineers were placed in additional charge of AEEs, Petitioners have a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion in the post of AEEs in Fisheries Dept. 10. Contending that withholding the avenues for promotion is serious deprivation of the Petitioners right, learned counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance upon (1983) 3 SCC 284 [Y.V.Rangaiah and others v. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others]. 10. Contending that withholding the avenues for promotion is serious deprivation of the Petitioners right, learned counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance upon (1983) 3 SCC 284 [Y.V.Rangaiah and others v. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others]. In the said case, there was a delay in preparation of panel and panel was not prepared within the time stipulated in rules resulting deprivation of chances for promotion, Honble Supreme Court has held that vacancies in the promotional posts occurring prior to the amendment have to be filled up in accordance with law unamended rules. 11. In (2002) 10 SCC 396 [N.K.Pankajakshan Nair v. P.V.Jayaraj and others], the Supreme Court has held that provisions of statutory rules cannot be taken away by a suggestion of the executive until and unless the rules are appropriately amended. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners laid emphasis upon the decision in (2002) 10 SCC 432 [Ut.Chandigarh and others v. Avtar Singh and others] wherein it was held that withholding of promotion and stagnation in service for an unduly long period without avenue of promotion is not in the interest of administration. The observation in the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 13. As pointed out earlier, State Port Department was wound up and all its activities were transferred to the newly formed TNMB w.e.f. 13. 1997. Petitioners and other employees of erstwhile State Port Department have exercised their option to serve in TNMB. By the Proceedings No.1091/g/ep/-1/2003 dated 26. 2003, Vice-President and Chief Executive Officer of TNMB has passed the order promoting M.Maran and R.Kumaravel as promoted AEEs. The said copy has been sent to other Junior Engineers/Petitioners. As per seniority subject to the vacancies names of the Petitioners would be considered for promotion as AEEs in TNMB. There is no force in the contention of the Petitioners that stagnation in service for a long period without avenue of promotion. 14. Question arising for consideration is whether the Petitioners are to be considered for promotion to the post of AEEs in the Tamil Nadu Fishing Engineering Service. As pointed out earlier, as per G.O.Ms.No.37, Forests and Fisheries Department dated 11. 1983, personnel drafted from State PWD and State Port Dept. were treated as departmental transferees and they are governed by the service rules to the respective category in their parent department. As pointed out earlier, as per G.O.Ms.No.37, Forests and Fisheries Department dated 11. 1983, personnel drafted from State PWD and State Port Dept. were treated as departmental transferees and they are governed by the service rules to the respective category in their parent department. Subsequently, all the Junior Engineers / Assistant Executive Engineers drafted from State PWD were sent back to the parent PWD. Only the personnel from erstwhile State Port Dept./Petitioners continued in Fisheries Dept. 15. As per G.O.Ms.No.74, Transport (F2) Department, dated 13. 1997, State Port Department was wound up and all its activities were transferred to the newly formed TNMB w.e.f. 13. 1997 and the same was also published in the Government Gazette dated 13. 1997. Subsequently, options to work in the TNMB were called for from those who were willing among the employees of erstwhile Port Department. In G.O.Ms.No.208, Highways (HF2), Department dated 28. 1998 issued orders absorbing them to serve in the TNMB from the date of formation of the Board viz., 13. 1997. .16. All the employees of State Port Department exercised their option and had given their willingness to be a staff of Maritime Board excepting three employees viz., 1) R.Krishnan, Inspecting Dredging Engineer; 2) R.Subbaiyan, Assistant (Selection Grade); and 3) G.Davidson, Record Clerk. The learned AGP has produced the consent letters of 5th Petitioner [M.Jeyaram] and 6th Petitioner [T.Sankaranayanan] whereby they have consented to continue in TNMB w.e.f. 13. 1997. Having exercised their option to be absorbed in TNMB, it is not open to the Petitioners to contend that they continued to be the employees of Fisheries Department and panel of Junior Engineers fit for appointment as AEEs has to be prepared. .17. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has produced the letter No. 1063/g/ep/1/2000 dated 25. 2000 addressed to the Director of Fisheries. Referring to the names of Petitioners and others, in the said letter, the Chief Executive Officer has written a letter to the Director of Fisheries stating that final decision has to be taken in respect of the employees. In the letter, it was suggested that Petitioners and few others may permanently be absorbed in Fisheries department. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:- @jkpH;ehL JiwKfj;Jiw jw;nghJ thhpakhf khw;wg;gl;Ltpl;l fhuzj;jpdhy; ,g; gzpahsh;fsJ epiyg; gw;wp ,Wjpepiy vLf;f ntz;oa jUzk; te;Js;sJ/ jkpH;ehL fly;rhh; thhpak; jdJ Fiwe;jgl;r epjpj; njitiaf; Tl 18. In the letter, it was suggested that Petitioners and few others may permanently be absorbed in Fisheries department. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:- @jkpH;ehL JiwKfj;Jiw jw;nghJ thhpakhf khw;wg;gl;Ltpl;l fhuzj;jpdhy; ,g; gzpahsh;fsJ epiyg; gw;wp ,Wjpepiy vLf;f ntz;oa jUzk; te;Js;sJ/ jkpH;ehL fly;rhh; thhpak; jdJ Fiwe;jgl;r epjpj; njitiaf; Tl 18. In fact, Maritime Board has prepared a list for promotion for Junior Engineers to AEEs in the Proceedings No.1091/g/ep/1/2003 dated 26. 2003. As per the said Proceedings one M. Maran and R.Kumaravel were selected for promotion. In the said Proceedings, it is indicated that 3rd Petitioner Subburaj has relinquished his promotion for a period of three years. The copy of said Proceedings dated 26. 2003 promoting M.Maran and R.Kumaravel as AEEs was communicated to the Petitioners and served upon them. Learned AGP has also produced the file showing that the said Proceedings dated 26. 2003 had been served upon the Petitioners. 19. The Chief Executive Officer, Maritime Board had sent letter No.5491/<1/2004 dated 24. 2005 to the Fisheries Department stating that for 2004-2005, panel for AEE was considered from out of the employees of TNMB. Referring to the letters of 1st and 5th Petitioners, the Chief Executive Officer has further stated that the names of 1st and 5th Petitioners are not considered for promotion as AEEs in TNMB, since the proposal for permanently absorbing them in Fisheries department is pending. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:- @ jkpH;ehL JiwKfj; Jiw. 18/3/97 Kjy; thhpakhf khw;wg;gl;l gpd;dh; mj;njjpapy; kPd;tsj; Jiwapy; gzpg[hpe;J te;j 14 gzpahsh;fis nkw;fhQqk; murhiz kw;Wk; bray;Kiw Mizfspd;go kPd;tsj;Jiw 20. From the above, it is clear that Petitioners continued to be the employees of TNMB. Only proposal for their absorbtion in Fisheries Department is pending as per the suggestion in letter No.1063/ g/ep/1/2000 dated 25. 2000. When the Petitioners are not the employees of Fisheries Department, they cannot seek for a direction to prepare a panel and that their names are to be considered for promotion to the post of AEEs in Fisheries Department. Petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for and the Writ Petition is bound to fail. 21. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.