Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner, at the time of filing the Original Application, was aged 55 years and working as Block Development Officer, Mandapam Block, Ramanathapuram District. He has challenged the order of the First Respondent in G.O. (1D) No. 172 Rural Development dated 15. 1998 and consequently, prayed for a direction to include his name in the list of Divisional Development Officer for the year 1997-98 in the appropriate place, with all consequential benefits, such as retrospective promotion, arrears of pay, etc. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that by G.O (4D) No. 144, Rural Development, dated 112. 1997, his name has been included in the panel for the post of Divisional Development Officer/Personal Assistant to the Collector at S1. No. 66. Though the Government have issued orders in G.O. (1D) No. 7, Rural Development (E1) Department, dated 11. 1998, promoting 91 persons as Divisional Development Officers/Personal /Assistants to the District Collector/Assistant Project officers, there is no reason, as to why the Petitioner was not promoted. In the said order, the Government have stated that the name of the Petitioner was directed to be deleted on the ground of pendency of charges. The actual deletion of name of the Petitioner was effected by issuance of another Government Order in G.O. (1D) No. 172, Rural Development (E1) Department, dated 15. 98. The Petitioner has further contended that at the time of approval of the panel, he made a representation, dated 12. 1999 to the Government, but there was no response. In these circumstances, he has preferred Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras for the relief stated supra, which has been subsequently transferred to this Court and renumbered as present Writ Petition. 3. Assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that at the time of drawal of the panel for the year 1997-98, published in G.O. (4D) No. 144 dated 112. 1997, no Charge Memo was served on the Petitioner. In fact, the Charge Memo was communicated to the Petitioner only on 212. 1997 and therefore, the same cannot be taken into account for denying promotion to the Petitioner to the post of Divisional Development Officer. He therefore submitted that pendency of charges under Rule 17(b), cannot be a ground for deletion of his name in the panel for the year 1997-98. 4. 1997 and therefore, the same cannot be taken into account for denying promotion to the Petitioner to the post of Divisional Development Officer. He therefore submitted that pendency of charges under Rule 17(b), cannot be a ground for deletion of his name in the panel for the year 1997-98. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Charge Memo dated 28. 96 is void ab-initio, as the same is without jurisdiction. According to him, the Government alone is competent to frame charges and the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, the Third Respondent herein is not competent to frame charges. Therefore, he submitted that when the charges itself are void ab initio, the Petitioner ought to have been included in the list of Divisional Development Officer for the year 1997. 5. The First Respondent in his Counter Affidavit has contended that initially, when the case of the Petitioner came up for consideration for the post of Divisional Development Officer, his name was included at S1. No. 66 in the panel for the year 1997-98 issued in G.O. (4D) No. 144 dated 112. 1997. Subsequently, the Collector, Ramnad District, Third Respondent, in his fax message, dated 12. 1999, stated that charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were framed against the Petitioner in Memo, dated 28. 96, for an allegation that the Petitioner has misappropriated 1026 cement bags along with the Union Engineer. It was further informed that a Charge Memo was served on the Petitioner on 212. 1997 and hence, his name should be removed from the panel, in view of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b), as contemplated in G.O.Ms. No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 111. 1993. 6. The First Respondent has further submitted that a copy of the Government Order, in which, the Divisional Development Officer Panel was drawn up, was not communicated to the Petitioner in view of the pendency of the Disciplinary proceedings. In the meantime, posting orders were issued on 11. 1998 to those who were included in the panel and that the Petitioner was informed that he was not given promotion/posting, due to pendency of the charges under Rule 17(b). Therefore, in G.O. (1D) No. 172, Rural Development Department, dated 15. 98, orders were issued deleting the name of the Petitioner from the panel of Divisional Development Officer for the year 1997-98. 7. Therefore, in G.O. (1D) No. 172, Rural Development Department, dated 15. 98, orders were issued deleting the name of the Petitioner from the panel of Divisional Development Officer for the year 1997-98. 7. The Respondent has further submitted that decision of the Government not to give promotion to an officer, who was charged for having committed certain serious irregularities in Government service, is not arbitrary and unreasonable or violation of the statutory provisions. It is the further case of the Respondent that as per G.O.Ms. No. 368 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 111. 1993, postponement of promotion, on account of pendency of Disciplinary proceedings, is permissible and hence, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Heard the submissions made by the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Before going into the merits of this case, it is useful to extract few decisions of the Supreme Court, as to whether, a Government Servant has any statutory or legal right to claim promotion, on the basis of mere inclusion of his name in the panel. 9. In S. Ramaswamy v. Union of India, 1976 (4) SCC 79 , the Supreme Court held as follows: “Mere inclusion in such a list confers no right on anyone to be promoted to the higher post. It only gives an opportunity to be considered for promotion.” 10. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. N.R. Banerjee, 1997 (9) SCC 287 , at Paragraph 12, held as follows: “12. Considered from that perspective, the question arises whether the view taken by the Tribunal is justified in law. It is true that filling up of the posts are for clear or anticipated vacancies arising in the year. It is settled law that mere inclusion of one’s name in the list does not confer any right on him/her to appointment. It is not incumbent that all posts may be filled up. But the authority must act reasonably, fairly and in public interest and omission thereof should not be arbitrary. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India the Constitution Bench had held that inclusion of the name of a candidate in a merit list does not confer any right to be selected unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies seven though the Sate acts in an arbitrary manner. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies seven though the Sate acts in an arbitrary manner. In Babita Prasad v. State of Bihar it was held that mere inclusion of one’s name in the panel does not confer on him/her any indefeasible right to appointment. It was further held that the purpose of making a panel was to finalise the list of eligible candidates for appointment. The preparation of the panel should be to the extent of the notified or anticipated vacancies. Unduly wrong panel should not be operated. In Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, it was held that the mere fact that a candidate’s name finds place in the select list as a selected candidate for appointment to a post, does not confer on him/her an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him to such appointment. In State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examines Union it was held that a person who is selected and empanelled does not on account of empanelment alone acquire any indefeasible right to appointment. Empanelment is, at the best, a condition of eligibility for the purposes of appointment and that by itself does not amount to selection or certain of a vested right to appointment unless relevant rules state to the contrary. However, in the light of the above principles and in the light of the clear rules extracted hereinbefore, it is seen that the exercise of preparation of the panel is undertaken well in advance to fill up the clear vacancies or anticipated vacancies. The preparation and finalisation of the yearly panel, unless duly certified by the appointing authority that no vacancy would arise or no suitable candidate was available, is a mandatory requirement. If the annul panel could not be prepared or any justifiable reason, yearwise panel of all the eligible candidates within the zone of consideration for filling up the vacancies each year should be prepared and appointment made in accordance therewith. If the annul panel could not be prepared or any justifiable reason, yearwise panel of all the eligible candidates within the zone of consideration for filling up the vacancies each year should be prepared and appointment made in accordance therewith. In Nagar Mahapalika v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava this Court had pointed out with respect to the prescription of the limitation of one year of the waiting list thus: “The reason underlying the limitation of the period of a list for one year is obviously to ensure that other qualified persons are not deprived of their chances of applying for the posts in the succeeding years and being selected for appointment.” 11. Pleadings disclose that the panel for the year 1997-98 for the post of Divisional Development Officer/Personal Assistant to the Collector was prepared by the Government in G.O.(4D) No.144, Rural Development (E.1) Department, dated 112. 1997. The fact that the Department had already framed certain charges against the Petitioner in Memo No.7210/96/R5, dated 28. 1996, before the preparation of the panel, cannot be disputed. Within two days from the date of approval of the above said panel, the District Collector, Ramnad, in his fax massage, dated 112. 97 has brought to the notice of the Government, that charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, were pending against the Petitioner for misappropriation of 1026 cement bags along with the Union Engineer. The said Charge Memo was also served on him on 212. 1997, before the actual promotions were effected. 12. The Government in G.O.Ms. No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 111. 1993 have categorically stated that if the Government servant is facing charges under Rule 17(b) of the above said Rules, his name can be passed over. In the case on hand, the District Collector, Ramnad, has sent an information about the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, under Rule 17(b) of the Rules and therefore, the name of the Petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Divisional Development Officer, which is a selection post, where merit is the only criteria. 13. Pleadings further disclose that before 12.01.1998, the date on which, the actual promotion was made, a Charge Memo, dated 29.08.1996 has been framed to enquire into the allegation of misappropriation against the Petitioner. 13. Pleadings further disclose that before 12.01.1998, the date on which, the actual promotion was made, a Charge Memo, dated 29.08.1996 has been framed to enquire into the allegation of misappropriation against the Petitioner. The pendency of disciplinary proceedings or its conclusion, can be taken into consideration, at two stages: (1) on the crucial date or (2) on the date of consideration. 14. In the case on hand, though charges were pending as on 29.08.1996, the same has been served only on 212. 1997. However, the service of Charge Memo on the Government servant is not relevant for the purpose of consideration of his name for promotion to a higher post. The post of Divisional Development Officer, being a selection post and in view of pendency of charges, as on 28. 1996, the deletion of the name of the Petitioner from the panel cannot be said to be illegal and contrary to the general guidelines issued by the Government from time to time in the matter of preparation of the panel and consequential promotion. It is well settled that there is no necessity to issue any notice for deletion of the name of a Government servant from the panel, as he has no indefeasible right. 15. Right to consider for promotion is now recognised as a fundamental Right, as per the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Sangram Keshari Nayak, 2007 (6) SCC 704 and S. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumadar, 2007 (10) SCC 513 . In the case on hand, though the name of the Petitioner has been considered and included, while drawing up the panel for the post of Divisional Development Officer, in view of the fax message of the Third Respondent to the effect that 17(b) charges have been framed against the Petitioner, for misappropriation of 1026 bags of cement along with the Union Engineer, the name of the Petitioner has rightly been deleted and therefore, there is no violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 16. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme court and the guidelines issued by the Government from time tot time, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as sought for in this Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.