Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.6287 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to set aside the order dated 12.05.2000 and after setting aside the same sought for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 1999-2000 from the date of promotion given to his immediate juniors viz., 30.07.2000 with all consequential benefits. 2. The Tribunal admitted the Original Application on 28.08.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 07.11.2000. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.41657 of 2006. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 14.11.1977. He was promoted as Head Constable (AR) on 01.05.1995. By a memo dated 12.05.2000, the Director General of Police, Chennai issued instructions to convene the Range Promotion Board for drawal of 'C' list of Head Constables (AR) to be promoted for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (AR) for the year 1999-2000. The petitioner was facing a charge memo under Rule 3(b) in P.R.No.131/98 for the misconduct of disobeying the orders of his superior officer by refusing to go for bandobust duty at Kalugumalai. The said P.R ended in the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. Due to the currency of punishment and the guidelines of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.368 P & AR Department dated 18.10.1993, the petitioner was not selected. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the stand of the respondents is contrary to the Memorandum of the Director General of Police dated 12.05.2000. If the stand of the respondents that 5 year check period was taken into account, then for the punishment dated 12.04.1999, the petitioner should not have been allowed to participate in the test till 12.04.2004 and hence, the reply was filed without application of mind. In the normal circumstances, the punishment cannot have effect more than one year period and hence with effect from 11.04.2000, the punishment cannot be put against the petitioner. Atleast the petitioner should be included on a notional basis for the post of Sub Inspector from the year 1999-2000 as he had already been selected as Sub Inspector (AR) in the year 2002. 6. Atleast the petitioner should be included on a notional basis for the post of Sub Inspector from the year 1999-2000 as he had already been selected as Sub Inspector (AR) in the year 2002. 6. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.Krishnan reported in AIR 1992 SC 1898 . In that case, the Court was dealing with the interpretation of Rule 157 of the Post and Telegraph Manual - Volume III, wherein, it was held that promotion cannot be given effect to during the currency of penalty and after the expiry of the penalty, there was no impediment for the grant of promotion. 7. He also further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.S.Murugesan and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 273 and referred to the following passage found in Paragraph 7: "7. It would thus be clear that when promotion is under consideration, the previous record forms the basis and when the promotion is on merit and ability, the currency of punishment based on previous record stands as an impediment. Unless the period of punishment gets expired by efflux of time, the claim for consideration during the said period cannot be taken up." 8. In the present case, since the petitioner had committed a misconduct as on 01.12.1998 and suffered a punishment on 12.04.1999, his name was not considered for the selection for the year 1999-2000. He was not eligible to attend the promotion Board and subsequently in 2002, he was given promotion. Therefore, the respondents were correct in holding that the petitioner was not eligible for inclusion in the panel finds substance. The decision relied on by the petitioner has no application to the case on hand. On the other hand, the respondents have relied upon the guidelines framed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.368 P & AR Department dated 18.10.1993. 9. In the light of the above, there is no case made out. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.