Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order Ref.No.77728/E2/3/200, dated 7.3.2002, with consequential relief of directing the respondent to promote the petitioner as Office Superintendent, w.e.f. 17.4.2001 with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the service as Junior Assistant, on the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant vide order dated 15.8.1988. On the basis of anticipated enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.01.2001, on the allegation of misappropriation of funds. 3. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which stayed the impugned order of suspension. 4. The petitioner was promoted as Office Superintendent on 17.04.2001, but was not allowed to join the promoted post. It was only on the revocation of the suspension order that the petitioner was posted as Assistant in Government Medical College, Madurai, instead of Office Superintendent. 5. The petitioner filed a representation dated 30.01.2002 with the respondent for promotion as Office Superintendent as ordered on 17.04.2001, but no action was taken by the respondent, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court the prayer as noted above. 6. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent, on the ground that the order dated 17.04.2001 was erroneously issued, therefore, before its implementation, it was cancelled, as the departmental enquiry under Rule 17(b) was contemplated against the petitioner and charge memo alleging serious misconduct was issued on 20.06.2001. 7. The stand of the respondent is that during pendency of enquiry under Rule 17(b), the petitioner was not entitled to promotion, therefore, he was not given charge of Office Superintendent, in view of the cancellation of order dated 17.04.2001. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the action of the respondent cannot be sustained in law, as on the date of promotion, there was no departmental proceedings under Rule 17(b) pending against the petitioner and subsequent issuance of charge memo cannot be a ground to deny promotion to the petitioner. 9. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was suspended on serious charge of misappropriation. It was only because of the interim order granted by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, that the order of suspension was revoked which resulted in issuance of erroneous order dated 17.04.2001. 9. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was suspended on serious charge of misappropriation. It was only because of the interim order granted by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, that the order of suspension was revoked which resulted in issuance of erroneous order dated 17.04.2001. The erroneously passed order did not give any right to the petitioner, as admittedly, it was not implemented nor the petitioner joined the promoted post in pursuance thereto. The contention of the learned counsel that on the date of promotion, there was pending enquiry cannot be accepted, as enquiry on serious charge of misappropriation was contemplated and the petitioner was suspended. The pending enquiry would include contemplated enquiry resulting in order of suspension. This Court does not like to comment on order of the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in staying the suspension. 10. It is also not disputed that by virtue of revocation of suspension by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner was given posting and the charge memo under Rule 17(b) was also issued. 11. According to the service rules, an employee facing charges under Rule 17(b) on the allegation of serious misconduct, is not entitled to promotion. Therefore, the action of the respondent being in consonance with the Service Rules, does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No merit. "Dismissed". No cost.