Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order R.C.No.7477/E2/2011 dated 16.08.2011 with consequential relief of issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant Selection Grade in the post of Junior Inspectors, by taking their total service from their initial date of appointment as Sericulture Demonstrators (earlier Operatives). 2. The petitioners joined the Sericulture department of the State of Tamil Nadu as temporary Operatives. The post of Operative was merged with the post of Sericulture Demonstrator as both were having same duties and responsibilities. 3. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.310 dt.7.11.1987 the post of Sericulture Demonstrator was merged with the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture by merger of cadre with effect from 01.10.1984 with monetory benefit from 01.04.1986. 4. The seniority list of Junior Inspectors was circulated on 03.02.1988 and the petitioners were placed in the seniority list as under: K.Viswanathan- Seniority No.239 A.Alagesan- Seniority No.195 R.Hariharan- Seniority No.206 C.Venkatachalam- Seniority No.210 A.Paramasivam- Seniority No.196 S.R.Dharmalingam- Seniority No.205 T.Jegadeesan- Seniority No.209 R.Sreeram- Seniority No.202 K.E.Devendran- Seniority No.230 5. The service rules governing service conditions of the employees working in the State of Tamil Nadu stipulates the grant of Selection Grade on completion of 10 years of service. The petitioners therefore were entitled to grant of Selection Grade in the post of Junior Inspector by taking into consideration the total service from the date of initial appointment as Sericulture Demonstrator (earlier operatives). 6. As the State Government failed to grant Selection Grade and on the other hand cancelled the Selection Grade granted to some of the Sericulture Demonstrators. 7. The decision of the State Government to cancel the Selection Grade was challenged by Sericulture Demonstrators by filing O.A.Nos.4858 of 1992, 229 to 239 and 877 of 1993. 8. The learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 5.11.1993 quashed the order of cancellation, by holding that consequence of the merger was in effect re-designation and not promotion and therefore, employees were entitled to counting of entire service in the merged post, for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade. 9. Tvl. 8. The learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 5.11.1993 quashed the order of cancellation, by holding that consequence of the merger was in effect re-designation and not promotion and therefore, employees were entitled to counting of entire service in the merged post, for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade. 9. Tvl. M.Sivasankar and M.Mookkan juniors to the petitioners filed W.P.No.28492 of 2006 praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondents to grant Selection Grade in the post of Junior Inspector by taking into consideration the total service from the initial date of appointment. 10. The writ petition was allowed and the benefit of Selection Grade in the post of Junior Inspectors of Sericulture was granted, by counting their service rendered as Operatives and Sericulture Demonstrators and Junior Inspectors. 11 The judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.28492 of 2006 reads as under: "The petitioners have approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.2729 of 1997 seeking for a direction directing the respondents to grant Selection Grade in the post of Junior Inspector to the petitioners with effect from 25.9.1989 and 24.9.1989, respectively, taking their total service from their initial dates of appointment as Sericulture Demonstrators and pay the arrears. The said Original Application has been transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.28492 of 2006. Mr.Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the orders passed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai batch of Original Application Nos.4858 of 1992 dated 5.11.1993 etc., wherein similarly placed persons have been granted the relief asked for. Further, according to the learned counsel the said order passed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal was implemented by the proceedings of the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Avalapalli dated 25.8.1996. 3. The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents does not dispute above said facts. 4. In view of the same, the petitioners are entitled to the relief which they claimed in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition stands allowed. The second and third respondents are directed to settle all the benefits to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 12. Writ appeal filed by the respondents/State was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 21.04.2009. Therefore, the writ petition stands allowed. The second and third respondents are directed to settle all the benefits to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 12. Writ appeal filed by the respondents/State was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 21.04.2009. 13. After dismissal of the writ appeal, the benefit of Selection Grade was granted to Tvl. M. Sivasankar and M.Mookkan in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture. 14. The petitioner being a senior to those employees also filed representation with the respondents for grant of Selection Grade by counting total service rendered by them as was done in the case of similarly situated employees. 15. The representations filed by the petitioners stands rejected vide impugned order, holding that wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. 16. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioners, on the ground; “(i) That the order is totally arbitrary and discriminatory therefore, is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That re-designation or merger of two cadres does not amount to promotion and therefore the service rendered on a post before re-designation or merger cannot be ignored for grant of Selection Grade. (iii) That the impugned orders are discriminatory, as some of the similarly situated employees were granted Selection Grade by counting their total service, whereas the petitioners were denied the same benefits. (iv) That the impugned order being totally arbitrary amounts to colourable exercise of power, for the reason that the order does not show as to how the judgment of this Court was wrong or contrary to rules or law, so as not to be treated as precedent.” 17. The writ petition is contested by the State. Though facts are not disputed, the relief claimed is challenged on the ground that vide G.O.Ms.No.694 Finance dated 11.8.1986, the scale of pay of Sericulture Demonstrator was merged with the scale of pay of Junior Inspector of Sericulture with effect from 1.10.1984 (only of pay merger) and thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.310 Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi department dated 7.11.1987, the Government merged the post of Sericulture Demonstrator with that of Junior Inspector (only designation merged). 18. 18. It is not understood how this can be a ground to consider the post of Junior Inspector to be a promotional post, as admittedly, it was the case of merger of two cadres. 19. It is also the stand of the respondents that at the time of merger, Sericulture Demonstrator was in a lower cadre then that of Junior Inspector of Sericulture, therefore and in view of the absorption in the higher post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture, the petitioners were granted higher scale of pay which means enmasse promotion by merger. 20. It is also submitted by the respondent that vide G.O.Ms.No.898 dt.23.09.1983 the Government decided that the Selection Grade can be awarded by taking the period of 10 years from the date of merger only. 21. The stand of the respondents is totally arbitrary and not sustainable in law. The concept of enmasse promotion by merger of cadre is not known in service jurisprudence. It may noticed that merger of two cadres cannot be a promotion by way of merger, rather it amounts to unification of two cadres for better administration. 22. The merger of redesignation of a post by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a promotion to deny the benefit of service rendered on a post prior to merger. 23. The G.O.Ms.No.898 dated 23.09.1983 can be safely said to be arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, cannot come in the way of the petitioners to claim Selection Grade by counting total service in a post. 24. The judgment of this Court also cannot be said to be violative of any law or regulation. The service conditions of employees are governed by service rules and not by Government orders, which may go contrary to service rules. It is well settled that if cadre merged, there can be no question of promotion, as contended by State. There is no justification or object for issuance of G.O.Ms.No.898, as it goes contrary to service rule stipulating grant of selection grade on completion of 10 years of service on a post. 25. The stand of the respondent in the counter, on the face of it arbitrary, therefore cannot be sustained in law. The respondent cannot discriminate the employees, the pleas raised before this Court were raised by the respondents in the counter earlier. 25. The stand of the respondent in the counter, on the face of it arbitrary, therefore cannot be sustained in law. The respondent cannot discriminate the employees, the pleas raised before this Court were raised by the respondents in the counter earlier. Therefore, the contention would be deemed to have been considered and rejected on the principle of constructive res judicata. 26. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to grant Selection Grade to the petitioners in the post of Inspector of Sericulture by taking into consideration the total service rendered i.e. from the date of initial appointment as Sericulture Demonstrators (earlier Operatives). 27. The petitioners are also entitled to cost of this writ petition which is assessed at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only).