Judgment :- 1. On 5.3.1973, the petitioner was appointed Junior Assistant in Treasuries and Accounts Department. In 1975, he was promoted as Assistant. On 12.1.1996, he was further promoted as Superintendent. 2. One of the avenues of promotion for Superintendent is Assistant Accounts Officer. As per Rule 5 of the Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Service, one should possess the following qualifications for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer:- "a) Must possess the Minimum General Educational qualification. b) Must have passed Account Tests for Subordinate Officers Part I & Part II. c) Must have passed Accountancy Higher Grade or must be a Commerce Graduate from any recognized University. d) Must have worked as Superintendent/ Accountant/Commercial Accountant/Auditors born on the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service or any other similar supervisory post carrying the pay not less than that of the Superintendent in any other service, any section dealing with subjects relating to Accounts, Audit, Budgeting or control of expenditure, for a period not less than 5 years. e) Must be an approved probationer in the category from which the appointment is made or any other lower categories in that service to which he was recruited." 3. The crucial date for empanelment to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer is 15th June of the year. Therefore, for the year 1998-1999, the crucial date is 15.6.1998. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pass Accountancy higher grade and therefore he was not included in the panel. 5. However, the Superintendents, who are juniors to him and who did not complete 5 years of service as required under the Rules, numbering 57, were included in the panel. Out of 77 persons included in the panel, 57 persons did not complete 5 years of service as Superintendent. They were promoted by an order dated 15.5.1999 as Assistant Accounts Officer for the year 1998-1999 pending relaxation of service qualification by the Government. 6. The petitioner passed the required Accountancy higher grade in August, 2000. While so, the Government issued G.O.No.93, Finance Department dated 5.3.2001 granting relaxation relating to service qualification in respect of 57 persons who were promoted as Assistant Accounts Officers for the year 1998-99. 7. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts issued a permanent panel dated 16.3.2001 for the year 1998-99 consisting of 77 persons, including 57 persons for whom relaxation was granted. 8. 7. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts issued a permanent panel dated 16.3.2001 for the year 1998-99 consisting of 77 persons, including 57 persons for whom relaxation was granted. 8. In the said circumstances, the petitioner made a representation dated 16.4.2001 to the Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts requesting him to include his name also in the panel for the year 1998-1999 and to promote him as Assistant Accounts Officer by giving necessary relaxation. But, his request was rejected by the Commissioner by order dated 21.5.2001 stating that he did not pass Accountancy higher grade test on the crucial date viz. 15.6.1998. 9. The petitioner made a representation dated 27.1.2002 to the respondent herein to consider his case for relaxation as done to other persons in the case of relaxation of service qualification. 10. The respondent rejected his request in the impugned G.O.(2D)No.54 Finance Department dated 5.6.2002 on the sole ground that he did not pass the Accountancy higher grade test on the crucial date viz. 15.6.1998. 11. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5463/2002 to quash the G.O.No.54 and has sought a direction to the respondent to include him in the panel of Superintendents fit for promotion for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer for the year 1998-1999 at appropriate place and promote him from the place where his immediate juniors were promoted. 12. The respondent filed counter affidavit reiterating the stand that was made in the impugned Government Order. 13. Heard both sides. 14. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent acted arbitrarily and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since the respondent granted relaxation in the matter of 57 persons, who are juniors to him, when they lacked the required service, but the same was not applied in his case. Those 57 persons did not put 5 years of service on the crucial date viz. 15.6.1998. But they were promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer for the year 1998-1999 pending relaxation. The respondent issued G.O.No.93 dated 5.3.2001 granting relaxation in favour of those 57 persons. 15. While those 57 persons were not qualified for inclusion in the panel as they did not complete 5 years of service as Superintendent, the petitioner was not qualified by not passing the required Accountancy higher grade test. The respondent issued G.O.No.93 dated 5.3.2001 granting relaxation in favour of those 57 persons. 15. While those 57 persons were not qualified for inclusion in the panel as they did not complete 5 years of service as Superintendent, the petitioner was not qualified by not passing the required Accountancy higher grade test. In the case of 57 persons, who are juniors to the petitioner, the respondent thought it fit to grant relaxation, but the respondent discriminated the petitioner alone and refused to grant relaxation stating that as on 15.6.1998, the crucial date, he did not pass the Accountancy test. 16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner does not seek as a matter of right for inclusion in the panel of 1998-1999 and promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer for the year 1998-99. But, when the respondent had adopted a yardstick by granting relaxation in the matter of service qualification to 57 persons, who are juniors to the petitioner, the respondent could not refuse to apply the same yardstick in the case of the petitioner, particularly, when he passed the accountancy test when the respondent issued G.O.No.93. But, in the case of those 57 persons, they did not complete 5 years of service as required under the Rules. 17. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned Government Order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. A direction is issued to the respondent to include the petitioner in the panel of Superintendents for the year 19981999 for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer at appropriate place and to grant promotion from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted. However, it is made clear that the promotion will be only on notional basis. The respondent is also directed to undertake the aforesaid exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 18. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.