Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is working as a Deputy Block Development Officer, in Thali Block, Krishnagiri District. He had been appointed, initially, as a Masalchi, in Thalli Panchayat Union, with effect from 22.10.1973. Subsequently, he had been posted as an Office Assistant, in Thali Block, from 6.3.1976 till 4.10.1982. Thereafter, he had been transferred and posted at the office of the Divisional Development Officer, Hosur, as an office assistant from 14.10.1982 till 21.1.1991. On 28.1.1991, the petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Assistant in the vacancy meant for such appointment from the cadre of office assistant. 3. While so, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.1680 of 1985, before this Court, challenging the transfer of the petitioner, from Thali Panchyat Union to the office of the Divisional Development Officer, Hosur, on the ground that his chances of appointment, as a Junior Assistant, would be affected, adversely, due to such transfer. The said writ petition had been transferred to the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.1263 of 1989. On 6.11.1990, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the transfer application and it had held that the petitioner was entitled to his seniority in the cadre of office assistant, reckoned from 6.3.1976, for the purpose of appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. Accordingly, the petitioner had been regularized, as a Junior Assistant, with effect from 14.10.1987, based on his original date of appointment, with effect from 6.3.1976, even though the petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Assistant on 28.1.1991. In fact, the petitioner had successfully completed the period of promotion in the cadre of office assistant on 5.3.1977. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had passed all the departmental examinations applicable to the post of Junior Assistant, by 31.5.1998. After necessary clarifications had been obtained, with regard to the declaration of probation of the petitioner, he had been promoted as an Assistant/ Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I, on 16.11.2006. 5. It has been further stated that the respondent ought to have promoted the petitioner as an Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I, on 1.6.1998, as he had completed all the departmental examinations to hold the post of Junior Assistant on 31.5.1998. 5. It has been further stated that the respondent ought to have promoted the petitioner as an Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I, on 1.6.1998, as he had completed all the departmental examinations to hold the post of Junior Assistant on 31.5.1998. However, the second respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 5.2.2008, by which the petitioner had been placed as an Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I. Even though the name of the petitioner had been included in the cadre of Assistant, retrospectively, from the year, 1999, he could not reap the benefits of such promotion, as the petitioner was promoted as a Deputy Block Development Officer (extension officer), only on 4.5.2010. 6. It had been further stated that the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant ought to have been reckoned from 1.6.1998, as per the letter written by the first respondent on 15.9.2006. However, in fact, persons who were junior to the petitioner, in the cadre of Assistant, were included in the list of Extension Officers, while the petitioner had not been included on the ground that he had not served as an Assistant, for a period of one year, as on 1.3.2008. The petitioner had been overlooked for the promotion, for the post of Extension Officer, as he had not completed one year of service, both in the cadre of Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I, as well as in the cadre of Assistant, as on 1.3.2008. 7. The second respondent had failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner had been considered, in respect of his seniority, in the cadre of Assistant, retrospectively, from the year, 1999, as it was not the fault of the petitioner in not working as an Assistant, for a period of one year, as on 1.3.2008. Therefore, he had preferred an appeal to the first respondent. However, the first respondent had not passed any orders, till date. The petitioner had retired from service on 30.9.2010. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it has been stated that the petitioner, who had been originally appointed as a Masalchi, had been promoted as an office assistant and he had joined duty as such, on 6.3.1976, and his service was regularized, in the cadre of office assistant, on the same date. He had completed the period of probation in the cadre of office assistant, on 5.3.1977. He had completed the period of probation in the cadre of office assistant, on 5.3.1977. Thereafter, the petitioner had been promoted, as a Junior Assistant, through the 10% reserved quota. He had joined duty, as a Junior Assistant, on 28.1.1991. However, his service had been regularized in the cadre of Junior Assistant, with effect from 14.10.1987, based on the decision of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, made in O.A.No.1263 of 1989. 9. It had been further stated that the petitioner had passed the departmental tests, only on 31.5.1998, after a period of eleven years from the date of his regularization in service, in the cadre of Junior Assistant. Therefore, necessary clarifications had to be obtained from the Commissioner of Rural Development, Chennai, the first respondent herein, regarding the declaration of his probation, as his appointment was by way of transfer from the post of Office Assistant to that of Junior Assistant. After getting the necessary clarification, by way of a letter, dated 15.9.2006, his name had been included in the panel for the post of Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I/Accountant, as per the proceedings of the District Collector, Krishnagiri, dated 9.11.2006. 10. It had been further stated that, as per G.O.Ms.No.587, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 12.4.1984, the Government had issued orders stating that a minimum of one year service qualification, as Assistant and Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I, should be acquired for consideration and promotion, as an extension officer. As the petitioner had acquired the necessary service qualifications, both in the cadre of Assistant and Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I, only on 1.3.2009, his name had been included in the panel for the post of Extension officer, re-designated as Deputy Block Development Officer, on 1.3.2009, as per the proceedings of the District Collector, Krishnagiri, dated 18.3.2009. However, the petitioner could not be given the promotion, immediately, due to want of vacancy. However, his name had been subsequently included, in the panel for the post of Deputy Block Development Officer, in the panel for the following year, on 1.3.2010, and promoted as such and he had joined duty, on 4.5.2010. As such, the claim of the petitioner, in the present writ petition, has no merits and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. As such, the claim of the petitioner, in the present writ petition, has no merits and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds no merit in the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. Sufficient explanation is found in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents for the belated promotion of the petitioner, as a Block Development Officer. On the other hand nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate his claims. 12. From the records placed before this Court it is seen that the respondents have been following the procedures prescribed, in granting the promotion to the petitioner, after obtaining the necessary clarifications from the first respondent. Further, the promotions granted in favour of the petitioner is as per the relevant government orders. As such, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.