Judgment :- 1. The petitioner entered into service as Grade-II Police Constable in District Armed Reserve, Chengalpattu East District on 17.03.1979 and he was promoted as Head Constable on 13.07.1985. 2. The petitioner was further promoted as Sub Inspector of Police, temporarily on 18.02.1998. While so, the second respondent issued the impugned Memorandum in Rc.No.104318 NGB V(2)/2000, dated 12.05.2000, convening the Range Promotion Board for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. 3. The petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.4773 of 2000 (W.P.No.46714 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid proceedings dated 12.05.2000 of the second respondent and for a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police (A.R) from the date of his promotion and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits. 4. While ordering notice of motion on 10.07.2000, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed an order not to revert the petitioner from the post of Sub Inspector of Police. It is stated that in view of the interim order, the petitioner still continues as Sub Inspector of Police. 5. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. 6. Heard Mr.K.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1998, only on temporary basis. He did not undergo any selection process. When the second respondent sought to convene the Range Promotion Board, the petitioner did not choose to participate in the selection process and filed the present writ petition. As per the Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, Written Test, Drill Test and Viva-Voce Test are prescribed for promotion from Head Constable to Sub-Inspector. The Special Rules are framed under 309 of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge made to the proceeding of the second respondent convening Range Promotion Board to conduct the test for selecting Sub Inspector of Police. Hence, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mr.Mega Kumar was promoted as Inspector of Police and was further promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Police. Hence, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mr.Mega Kumar was promoted as Inspector of Police and was further promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Police. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that said Mega Kumar did not undergo any selection process and the Government gave relaxation in his favour and regularisation was issued in his case regularising his temporary service as Sub-Inspector of Police. It is also submitted that a similar concession has been given to one Mohan also. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mohan is now working as Sub-Inspector of Police and he did not undergo any selection process and he was regularised in the post of Sub-Inspector by granting necessary relaxation. 9. The order of the Government passed in favour of Megakumar and Mohan granting relaxation, without participation in the selection process, are not placed before this Court. In any event, the same was not put to challenge in this proceeding. The challenge in this proceeding is the convening of the Range Promotion Board by the second respondent. If the petitioner is aggrieved that the second respondent acted in a discriminated manner in not granting a similar benefit to him, as given to Megakumar and Mohan, it is open to the petitioner to agitate in the manner known to law. 10. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.