Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. .2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: .The petitioner had been enlisted as a Grade-II Police Constable, on 110. 1972. He was promoted as a Head Constable, on 19. 1994. He had been in service for more than 27 years, without any blemish. While so, the Chief Office had issued a memorandum, dated 29. 1998, to convene a Range Promotion Board for Head Constables/Temporary Sub Inspectors, for those who had not crossed 53 years of age, as on 7. 1988 and for those who have had four years of service, as a Head Constable, with a minimum total service of seven years. Pursuant to the said memorandum, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, had issued a Circular to all the Inspectors of Police, Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners by his proceedings, dated 10. 1998, calling the Head Constables, who were fit to promotion, as Sub Inspectors, to appear for a written test to be conducted, on 19. 1998. Even though the petitioner was fully qualified to participate in the Range Promotion Board, he was not called for the written test. Pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, an order had been issued stating that all aspects, such as age of the Head Constable, as well as the service rendered by him would be taken into account, in view of the crucial date, which had been fixed, as 7. 1998. The impugned order, dated 1. 2000, which states that since the petitioner had not completed four years of service, as a Head Constable, as on 7. 1998, he was not called to participate in the promotion tests, is arbitrary and illegal. .3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the petitioner was enlisted, as a Grade II Police Constable, on 110. 1972 and he was promoted, as a Head Constable, on 19. 1994. Based on the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, instructions had been issued for convening a Range Promotion Board, to conduct promotion tests for the drawal of `C list of Head Constables fit for promotion, as Sub Inspectors, for the year, 1998. 1972 and he was promoted, as a Head Constable, on 19. 1994. Based on the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, instructions had been issued for convening a Range Promotion Board, to conduct promotion tests for the drawal of `C list of Head Constables fit for promotion, as Sub Inspectors, for the year, 1998. Pursuant to the said orders, the Director General of Police, Chennai, had issued directions to all Range Deputy Inspector Generals of Police and Commissioners of Police to convene Range Promotion Boards, for the preparation of `C list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police, for the year, 1998, subject to their satisfying certain conditions. The Head Constables must have a good working knowledge in English. They must not have completed 53 years of age on the first day of the July of the year, in which the selection is made. They must have completed 7 years of total service and should have served as Head Constables, on permanent or officiating capacity, for not less than four years on the date of the commencement of the test. The petitioner had been promoted as a Head Constable, on 19. 1994. He had completed four years of service in the category of Head Constable, on 19. 1998. He was not eligible for the promotion test and therefore, he was not called for the said test. The petitioner had completed four years of service, as a Head Constable, only on 19. 1998, whereas the first respondent had fixed the crucial date, as 7. 1988, for the drawal of the `C list of Head constables, fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police, for the year, 1998. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was enlisted as a Grade-II Police Constable, on 110. 1972, and he was promoted as a Head Constable, on 19. 1994. As such, he should have completed four years of service, as a Head constable, on 19. 1998. .5. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was enlisted as a Grade-II Police Constable, on 110. 1972, and he was promoted as a Head Constable, on 19. 1994. As such, he should have completed four years of service, as a Head constable, on 19. 1998. .5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the qualification for Head Constables to be considered for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police, they must have a good working knowledge of English and they must have completed 53 years of age on the first day of the month of July of the year in which the selection, for promotion of Head Constables as Sub Inspectors of Police, is held. They must have completed a total service of seven years and they must have served as Head Constables, whether permanent or officiating, for a period of not less than of four years, on the date of the commencement of the training. According to the said Government Order, a person must have served as a Head Constable for a period not less than four months from the commencement of the training, which would be after the process of promotion is completed. Even if the averment, made in the reply affidavit that a person must have not less than four years of service, as a Head Constable, on the date of the commencement of the test, is taken to be correct, the petitioner would have been qualified for being considered to be promoted as a Sub Inspector of Police. According to the memorandum issued on behalf of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, dated 29. 1998, the written test was scheduled to be conducted, on 110. 1998, and the training would have commenced only after 11. 1998. On the said date, the petitioner would have completed four years of service, as a Head Constable. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner should have completed four years of service, as a Head Constable, as on the crucial date, which was fixed, as 7. 1998, cannot be held to be valid, as it is contrary to the rules and the regulations applicable to the case of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel had submitted that a Division Bench of this Court, by an order, dated 13. 1998, cannot be held to be valid, as it is contrary to the rules and the regulations applicable to the case of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel had submitted that a Division Bench of this Court, by an order, dated 13. 2005, made in W.P.No.21652 of 2003, arising under similar circumstances, had issued directions to include the name of the candidate in the `C List of Head Constables, fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police, for the concerned year, at the bottom of the said list. However, it was made clear that he would not be entitled to get any monetary benefits due to such inclusion. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the petitioner was qualified to be considered for promotion as a Sub-Inspector of Police, in the year 1998. The contentions raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner ought to have completed four years of service, as a Head Constable, as on 7. 1998, cannot be countenanced. Since the petitioner had not completed 53 years of age, as on the first day of July, 1998, and as he had completed four years of service, as a Head Constable, on 19. 1998, before the process of selection, for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police, had commenced, the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondents for being promoted as a Sub Inspector of Police. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to show as to how the crucial date of 7. 1998, could be taken into consideration for calculating the length of service of the petitioner as a Head Constable, contrary to the Service Rules and the Government Orders applicable to the petitioner. No clear explanation has been put forth on behalf of the respondents to sustain the averments made in the reply affidavit filed on their behalf. 8. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 1. 2000, is set aside and the respondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner, at the bottom of the `C list of Head Constables, fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police, for the year, 1998, only for the purpose of calculating his seniority in service. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 1. 2000, is set aside and the respondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner, at the bottom of the `C list of Head Constables, fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police, for the year, 1998, only for the purpose of calculating his seniority in service. However, it is made clear that no monetary benefits would accrue to the petitioner, as a consequence of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.