Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioners are working as Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department, Government of Tamilnadu. The petitioners were having the qualification of Diploma in Engineering, at the time of their appointment. Accordingly, they had been appointed as overseers/technical assistants, during the years 1983 to 1986. On completion of their probation they were regularized in service, from the date of their initial appointment. 3. It has been further stated that, after the petitioners had completed the Bachelor of Engineering course they had been promoted as Junior Engineers, during the year, 1997. Thereafter, their services in the post of Junior Engineer had been regularized, with effect from the date of their joining in service in the said post. 4. It has been further stated that Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Tamilnadu Engineering Service and Ruling 2 to the Fundamental Rule 26 provide for redesignation of the Junior Engineers acquiring B.E/A.M.I.E qualifications. However, the issue relating to such redesignation was under challenge, before the Supreme Court, in C.A.No.7794 of 1997. While so no orders were passed relating to redesignation. However, after the disposal of the civil appeal, by the Supreme Court, upholding the rule and the practice of redesignation, the petitioners had been redesignated as Assistant Engineers, by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 29.5.2008. Accordingly, the petitioners had been promoted, as Assistant Executive Engineers, in the ratio of 3:1, between the Assistant Engineers and the Junior Engineers. While so a government order had been issued, in G.O.Ms.No.91, Public Works (A1) Department, dated 2.6.2009, containing a panel of names of Assistant Engineers, fit for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineers. However, the names of the petitioners have been left out of the panel, even though they should have been included in the said panel. In such circumstances,the petitioners have been constrained to prefer the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioners had studied part-time B.E course, while working as Technical Assistants/Overseers and had acquired Bachelor of Engineering Degree before the date of their joining as Junior Engineers. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioners had studied part-time B.E course, while working as Technical Assistants/Overseers and had acquired Bachelor of Engineering Degree before the date of their joining as Junior Engineers. As per Rule 5 Part-II of the Tamilnadu Engineering Service, the Junior Engineers are entitled for redesignation, as Assistant engineers, when they acquire a degree in Civil Engineering after entering into service, as junior engineers. However, the petitioners had acquired the Bachelor of Engineering Degree before joining the post of Junior Engineer. Further, the petitioners had been redesignated in the post of Assistant Engineer, retrospectively, during the year, 1997. As per the Tamilnadu Engineering Service Rules, the Assistant Engineers must have rendered service as Assistant Engineers, in the Public Works Department, for not less than five years, on duty, for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. In the case of the petitioners they had not completed five years of service, as on the 1.4.2006, which is the crucial date for considering the names of the Assistant Engineers, for being included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, for the year 2006-2007. Therefore, the names of the petitioners had not been considered for the inclusion in the panel for the year 20062007. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the non-inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the panel of Assistant Engineers fit for promotion, as Assistant Executive Engineers, for the year 2006-2007, is arbitrary and illegal. When the petitioners had been redesignated as Assistant Engineers, retrospectively, with effect from the year, 1997, their names ought to have been included in the panel for promotion, as Assistant Executive Engineers, for the year 2006-2007. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of this Court reported in S.KrishnakumarVs. State of T.N. (2011) 8 MJ 317, in support of his contentions. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the redesignation of the petitioners, as Assistant Engineers, retrospectively, from the year, 1997, would not vest any right in them to be included in the panel of Assistant Engineers, for being promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers, for the year 2006-2007. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the redesignation of the petitioners, as Assistant Engineers, retrospectively, from the year, 1997, would not vest any right in them to be included in the panel of Assistant Engineers, for being promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers, for the year 2006-2007. As per the Tamilnadu Engineering Service Rules the petitioners ought to have rendered service, as Assistant Engineers, for a period of not less than five years, on duty, for being considered for promotion, as Assistant Executive Engineers. Since, the petitioners did not have five years of experience, as Assistant Engineers, on duty, as on 1.4.2006, which is the crucial date for the preparation of the panel of Assistant Engineers fit for promotion, as Assistant Executive Engineers, for the year 2006-2007, their names had not been included in the said panel. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents, and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition, filed by the petitioners, is devoid of merits. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had been redesignated as Assistant Engineers, resrospectively, with effect from the year, 1997, by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 29.5.2008. As per the Tamilnadu Engineering Service Rules the Assistant Engineers must have rendered service of not less than five years, on duty, for being considered for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineers. As the petitioners did not possess the necessary qualification of the minimum five years of experience, in the post of Assistant Engineer, as on 1.4.2006, which is the crucial date for consideration of the names of Assistant Engineers to be included in the panel for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineers, for the year 2006-2007, the names of the petitioners had not been included in the said panel. As such the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. The present writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.