Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, who is working in the Audit Wing of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Departmentfiled the present Writ Petition, challenging an order of the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department dated 29.5.2011. By the impugned order, the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments informed the petitioner that proposals were sent for amending the Special Rules to enable even the personnel in the Audit Department to apply for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commissioner and the State Government had not accepted the same by communication dated 16.12.2010 and therefore the petitioner, who was working as an Audit Inspector in the Madurai Region cannot be permitted to write the examination for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commissioner and he will not be issued with the Service Certificate and the Madurai (South) Regional Audit Officer has been informed accordingly. 2. The contention of the petitioner is two-fold. The Notification issued by the TNPSC calling for applications for the post of Assistant Commissioner in Notification No.274 merely states that a person, who is an aspirant for the post of Assistant Commissioner must have put in not less than 6 years in the post of Executive Officer Grade I/Grade II/Grade III/Grade IV/Inspector/Head Clerk/Manager/ Superintendent in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department and the petitioner inasmuch as Inspector of the Audit Wing of the Department is entitle to apply for the post. Therefore, it is unreasonable on their part to deny permission to the petitioner to write the examination. 3. The petitioner also stated that earlier he filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.776 of 2010 to consider him for the post of Assistant Commissioner with reference to his earlier application submitted pursuant to the notification issued by the Notification in Notification No.223 dated 20.12.2009. In that Writ Petition, the petitioner had the benefit of interim direction to write the examination but the results were withheld. 4. In the meanwhile, one S.P.Shanthi also filed a Writ Petition No.27437 of 2010 and in that case she asked for direction to appear for the interview conducted by the TNPSC subsequent to the written examination. This Court by a detailed order dated 8.12.2010 allowed the Miscellaneous Petition and held that she should be interviewed provisionally by the TNPSC. 4. In the meanwhile, one S.P.Shanthi also filed a Writ Petition No.27437 of 2010 and in that case she asked for direction to appear for the interview conducted by the TNPSC subsequent to the written examination. This Court by a detailed order dated 8.12.2010 allowed the Miscellaneous Petition and held that she should be interviewed provisionally by the TNPSC. But, thereafter, the main Writ Petition itself was taken up for hearing and the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 15.2.2011. This court held that this matter of promotion or direct recruitment is governed by Rules in that regard. Merely because the petitioner therein is also having nomenclature as an Inspector, that cannot be a ground to consider her case for Inspector for the purpose of applying for direct recruitment. Even the Notification only talks that the feeder category should be from the Administrative wing of the HR & CE Department. 5. It is now claimed that as against the final order passed by this Court in the case of S.P.Shanthi, a Writ Appeal was filed in W.A.No.302 of 2011. Since the Writ Appeal is pending consideration by the Division Bench, the petitioner's earlier Writ Petition No.776 of 2010 was also posted along with the Writ Appeal. Even while these matters are pending before the Division Bench, the petitioner has once again come with the similar plea in respect of the subsequent notification, namely the Notification No.274 dated 16.4.2011. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has fair chance of winning and he has got a prima facie case to write the examination by way of an interim order. However, this Court is not inclined to admit the Writ Petition but directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to give notice to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 7. The 2nd respondent Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has filed a counter affidavit dated 2.8.2011. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that since the Government has declined to bring any amendment to the Special Rules to enable the Audit Superintendents and Assistant Audit Officers working in the Audit Wing of the HR & CE Department, the permission cannot be granted and hence his request for Service Certificate was also declined. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that since the Government has declined to bring any amendment to the Special Rules to enable the Audit Superintendents and Assistant Audit Officers working in the Audit Wing of the HR & CE Department, the permission cannot be granted and hence his request for Service Certificate was also declined. It is also stated that the Special Rules governing the appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department do not provide for appointment of the Audit Inspectors in the Audit Wing to be considered for the said post. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader of HR & CE Department also produced a copy of the Government Letter dated 16.12.2010, wherein it is stated that in respect of the Audit Wing for the Subordinate Officers, further promotional chances are provided for Assistant Audit Officer and Zonal Audit Officers and the post of Assistant Commissioner is distinct from the Audit Department and therefore, the petitioner's request for making amendment to the Special Rules cannot be feasible for compliance by the Department. 9. The Rule for filling up the post of Assistant Commissioner as per the amended Special Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.335, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department dated 9.11.2009 in relation to the service candidates reads as follows: "Must have put in a service of not less than six years in the post of Executive Officer, Grade I of Grade II or Grade III or Grade IV or Inspector or Head Clerk or Manager or Superintendent, in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department" (Emphasis added)" 10. Therefore, a perusal of the Rule itself shows that it is only an administrative Wing of the Department are considered and not the Audit Wing. It must be noted that the term "Inspector" is defined under Section 6 (12-A) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The term "Inspector" means an Inspector in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is performing the duties of Inspector in terms of HR & CE Act. As rightly contended by the respondents, she works within the Audit Department and the Department itself has got provision for further promotions within the wing. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is performing the duties of Inspector in terms of HR & CE Act. As rightly contended by the respondents, she works within the Audit Department and the Department itself has got provision for further promotions within the wing. Unless and until the petitioner is able to substantiate that the Audit Inspector is also coming under the Administration Wing of the HR & CE Department and in the absence of any amendment to the Special Rules, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to write such examination. The present Writ Petition seeking for Service Certificate to enable him to write the TNPSC Examination is misconceived and bereft of legal reasons and as already this Court in the case of S.P.Shanti in W.P.No.27437 of 2010 dated 15.2.2011 declined similar relief, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.