Judgment :- 1. Petitioner has invoked extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the promotion of 3rd respondent as Head Mistress, Panchayat Union Middle school with a consequential relief of writ in the nature of mandamus to promote the petitioner as Head Mistress. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade teacher and was promoted to the post of Tamil Pandit on 22.12.1998. Tmt. Parameswari, who was holding the post of Middle School Head Mistress was ordered to be reverted to the post of Tamil Pandit. In order to make a place for Tmt. Parameswari petitioner was reverted as Secondary School teacher. Though the order of reversion of the petitioner was passed in 17.06.1999, but she continued to hold the post till 07.12.1999 for want of Tmt. Parameswari to join as Tamil Pandit. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was therefore required to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Mistress along with the 3rd respondent as on the date of preparation of panel she was holding the post of Tamil Pandit and thus was eligible for being considered for the post, but her case was wrongly not considered. 4. On the facts pleaded, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that order of promotion of 3rd respondent deserves to be set aside, being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has been discriminated by denial of the right of consideration. 5. On consideration, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the panel for consideration was prepared on 01.01.2000 and on the said date the petitioner was not holding the post of Tamil Pandit but was Secondary Grade Teacher thus did not fall in the zone for consideration for being promoted as Head Mistress. 6. Even otherwise once the order of reversion had been passed merely because the petitioner continued to hold the post of Tamil pandit it did not give her right to be considered for further promotion, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. No error can be found with the order of promotion of the 3rd respondent, which may call for interference by this court. No merits. 7. No error can be found with the order of promotion of the 3rd respondent, which may call for interference by this court. No merits. 8. Dismissed. 9. No costs.