Judgment 1. The petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1995 and at the time of filing the Original Application before learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, was working in the District Collectorate, Salem. 2. The next channel of promotion in the cadre of petitioner is to the post of Tahsildar. 3. The petitioner was eligible for being promoted to the post of Tahsildar on the basis of seniority, but his name was not included in the panel on the ground, that he had not undergone Magisterial training, which was pre-requisite for promotion to the post of Tahsildar. 4. The persons like petitioner filed representation with the State Government, claiming that not considering them for promotion, for want of Magisterial experience, was unfair and arbitrary, as it is for the respondents to post the person to a post. It was, therefore, requested that this condition should not come in way for promotion of the persons, who, though willing, were not posted to the Magisterial post. 5. The State Government accepted the representation of persons, and issued G.O.Ms.No.73, Revenue (Ser.3(1)) dated 13.02.2001, relaxing the provisions of Rule 7(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service in favour of petitioner and other Deputy Tahsildars, for their empanellment for the year 2000. It is also stipulated in these instructions, that persons will not be subjected to eligibility criteria again for their empanellment for the year 2000. 6. The petitioner was again not empanelled, as on the date of consideration of the case, the petitioner was facing charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that once in the Government Order, it was stipulated that the petitioner shall not be subjected to eligibility again, it was not open to the respondents to reject the case of petitioner, due to pendency of charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. 8. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. The eligibility means seniority, qualification and merit etc., as per rules. The rules stipulate that employee cannot be empanelled or promoted, when proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules for serious misconduct, are pending. The petitioner in garb of Government instructions granting relaxation cannot claim empanellment in violation of statutory rules. 9. The eligibility means seniority, qualification and merit etc., as per rules. The rules stipulate that employee cannot be empanelled or promoted, when proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules for serious misconduct, are pending. The petitioner in garb of Government instructions granting relaxation cannot claim empanellment in violation of statutory rules. 9. The employee should be eligible not only on the date of consideration, but also on the date of promotion. 10. No error can be found with the order passed by the respondents, in not considering the case of petitioner for the panel year 2000, due to pendency of charges. 11. It is however made clear, that in case petitioner is exonerated of the charges, then petitioner can claim promotion from due date with all consequential benefits. 12. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.