Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Leprosy Inspector in Government Leprosy Control Unit in National Leprosy Control Scheme under the control of Director of Medical Services. He was regularised in the post of Leprosy Inspector with effect from 09.03.1988. He served as Leprosy Inspector for more than nine years i.e., up to 31.07.1997. Due to eradication of leprosy, the Leprosy Control Unit to which the petitioner was attached, got integrated with the first respondent. On integration, the post of Leprosy Inspector was redesignated as Health Inspector Grade-I "B" vide G.O.Ms.No.320, Health and Family Welfare (G1) Department, dated 27.06.1997 and the persons, who were serving as Health Inspector Grade-I in the respondent Department were redesignated as Health Inspector Grade-I "A". 2. As per the amendments made in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Public Health Subordinate Services in G.O.Ms.No.491, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 27.09.1996, the feeder categories for promotion to the post of Entomological Assistant are Health Inspector Grade-I, Health Inspector Grade-II and Laboratory Assistant. 3. The representation of the petitioner dated 15.05.2001 to consider him also for the post of Entomological Assistant was rejected by the first respondent vide order dated 22.05.2001, on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to the feeder categories, as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.491. 4. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4873 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 22.05.2001 of the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Entomological Assistant, by including his name in the panel of the year 2000-2001. 5. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. 6. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.49374 of 2006. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.491, referred to above, was issued prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.320. It is not in dispute that the Health Inspectors Grade-I "A" were included in the panel of the year 2000-2001 for promotion to the post of Entomological Assistant. Admittedly, the post of Health Inspector Grade-I "A" is not mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.491. After the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.320, the post of Health Inspector Grade-I was redesignated as Health Inspector Grade-I "A". It is not in dispute that the Health Inspectors Grade-I "A" were included in the panel of the year 2000-2001 for promotion to the post of Entomological Assistant. Admittedly, the post of Health Inspector Grade-I "A" is not mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.491. After the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.320, the post of Health Inspector Grade-I was redesignated as Health Inspector Grade-I "A". Since the post of Health Inspector Grade - I "A" was included in the aforesaid panel, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, who was working as Health Inspector Grade-I "B" also should be included in the aforesaid panel, since both the posts of Health Inspector Grade-I "A" and Health Inspector Grade-I "B" are equivalent for all purposes. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in S.SIVAGURU AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT [ 2010 (6) MLJ 468 ] also held that the Health Inspectors Grade-I "B" should be treated on par with Health Inspectors Grade-I "A" for all purposes, as both them are discharging the same duties and are given same scale of pay. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the first respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of persons fit for promotion to the post of Entomological Assistant of the year 2000-2001 at an appropriate place and to promote him on notional basis from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.