ORDER 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash G.O. Ms. No. 54 dated 30.3.2012 ordering the petitioner to be eligible for promotion for the year 1999, for the reason that his immediate junior Thiru.M.Perumal (SC Category) (1996/Rank No. 20) was included at Sl. No. 1 in the list of Commercial Tax Officers for the year 1999 in (SC) category. 2. The impugned order is in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner was fully eligible for promotion in the year 1998 itself for having cleared all the tests for promotion, therefore, he should have been empanelled for the year 1998 and not 1999. 3. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that once the petitioner was eligible and had qualified the test, there was no reason for the respondents to ignore the petitioner from being empaneled, specially when the order of punishment which was basis to ignore the petitioner was set aside, thereafter, no impediment was there to include the petitioner in the panel year 1998. 4. On consideration, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A person does not get right of promotion only on eligibility, but as and when promotions are actually made. In this case, the petitioner was not considered for promotion on account of punishment awarded to him. The order of punishment on appeal did not stand on the test of scrutiny of law and was quashed. 5. Therefore, the petitioner was restored the position which existed prior to punishment, which gave him right to be considered for promotion over and above his immediate junior. It is not in dispute that the benefit of promotion over and above his immediate junior has been granted to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has no absolute right on ground of eligibility for promotion, as it is for employer to see when promotions are made. No rule has been shown which stipulates automatic promotion on eligibility alone. 7. It is not in dispute that the benefit of promotion over and above his immediate junior has been granted to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has no absolute right on ground of eligibility for promotion, as it is for employer to see when promotions are made. No rule has been shown which stipulates automatic promotion on eligibility alone. 7. The another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that under the Standing Order 168(3) of the Tamil Nadu Commercial Tax Manuals, Volume III, if a person is qualified on the crucial date of panel, he is entitled to automatic empanellment cannot also be accepted for the reason, that an employee gets right, if promotions against available post, subject to the decision of employer to fill up the posts. The petitioner has not shown if any junior to petitioner was promoted in the year 1998. 8. It was for the employer to fix the number of vacancy to be filled up by promotions, for a particular year, as already noticed above, the relief to which the petitioner was entitled to, has already been granted. 9. The impugned order can not be said to be adverse to petitioner. 10. The petitioner suffered because of the pendency of the punishment order which was withdrawn by the department, and consequential benefits following there from also stand granted. 11. No legal right of the petitioner has therefore been infringed, as he has been promoted with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior, that too, by placing him at No. 1 (SC) category. The Writ Petition being totally misconceived is order to be dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.