Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.1390 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") is now Writ Petition in W.P.No.7430 of 2007 before this Court. 2. Heard Mr. M. Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. C.K. Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the Department of Industries and Commerce. Later, he was transferred to Department of Sericulture, in 1980. He was promoted as Assistant in March 1981. He was further promoted as Superintendent in May 1986. He was included in the panel of Administrative Officer for the year 1994-1995 and was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer vide Proc.No.17086/DSE1/94-2 dated 05.04.1995 of the Director of Sericulture, the second respondent herein. At that time, one Tmt. T. Kasthuri, filed O.A.No.2132 of 1995 before the Tribunal, questioning her reversion from the post of Administrative Officer, as she did not pass the required test. She was earlier promoted as Administrative Officer on temporary basis. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and quashed the order of reversion dated 05.04.1995. In view of the order of the Tribunal, she was promoted as Administrative Officer on 26.07.1996 and the petitioner was reverted and posted as Superintendent on the same date. After the retirement of Tmt.T.Kasthuri, the petitioner was again promoted as Administrative Officer vide Proc.No.10961/DSE1/96 dated 24.01.1997 of the second respondent. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation in May 1999 and was retired from service on 31.05.1999. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been included in the panel for the year 1998-1999 for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture, however, he was not included in the panel since he did not complete the two years of probation in the post of Administrative Officer in 1997 and that it was not due to his fault. If he had been included in the panel, he could have been promoted as Deputy Director of Sericulture and he could have retired as Deputy Director of Sericulture on 31.05.1999. In such an event, according to him, he could have received better pension and other terminal benefits. If he had been included in the panel, he could have been promoted as Deputy Director of Sericulture and he could have retired as Deputy Director of Sericulture on 31.05.1999. In such an event, according to him, he could have received better pension and other terminal benefits. Therefore, he made a representation dated 07.02.2001 to the first respondent to include his name in the panel of Administrative Officer fit for the promotion to post of Deputy Director of Sericulture for the year 1998-1999. The same was rejected by the first respondent in the order dated 04.01.2002. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.1390 of 2002 (W.P.No.7430 of 2007) to quash the said order dated 04.01.2002 of the first respondent, and for a direction, to include his name in the panel of Administrative Officer fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture for the year 19981999 and to grant him promotion accordingly and notional benefits, after declaring that he completed the probation in the post of Administrative Officer in 1997 itself, by not taking into account the break-in-service that occurred due to his reversion, when Tmt. T. Kasthuri was posted as Administrative Officer. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was reverted from the post of Administrative Officer on 26.07.1996, since Tmt. T. Kasthuri was posted to the post of Administrative Officer, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, referred above. The order of the Tribunal became final and also, the promotion given to Tmt. T. Kasthuri attained finality. Later, Tmt. T. Kasthuri, retired from service on 312. 1996 as Administrative Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-promoted to the post of Administrative Officer on 27.01.1997 and therefore, he completed his probation in the post of Administrative Officer only on 26.01.1999. Therefore, the Government has correctly refused to count the service for two years from 06.04.1995, by excluding break-in-service that occurred between 26.07.1996 to 27.01.1997 in the post of Administrative Officer. Further, the petitioner also retired from service in 1999. Thereafter, he made representation to the first respondent in 2001. Now, nearly eight years have elapsed. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, which he asked for. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.