ORDER 1. This Common Order shall dispose of W.P.(MD)Nos.7649 and 7650 of 2011, as common question of law and facts are involved. 2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from W.P.(MD)No.7649 of 2011. 3. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Roc.No.A1/78599/2009 dated 15.06.2011, and the order Na.Ka.No.Pani.3 (2)/29271/2010 dated 24.01.2011, ordering deletion of the name of the petitioner from the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant, by direct recruitment on the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner joined duty on 02.08.2004, and was allotted Madurai District. The next channel of promotion for the Assistant is to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, and panel for the year 2009 was drawn. The crucial date for drawing of the panel for promotion for the year 2009 was fixed as 15.09.2009. The petitioner, had completed five years of service, and had passed all tests, including Survey Maintenance Test, besides undergoing Survey Revenue Inspector for a period of two years, therefore was entitled for inclusion in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2009. 5. The District Collector, Madurai included the name of the petitioner in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildar promotion list for the year 2009, vide order dated 05.02.2010. 6. The name of the petitioner thereafter was deleted from the list of approved employee without any notice. 7. It is submitted that Rule 5(g) and 7(a) of Annexure III of (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules was amended to read as under:- “Provided also that the Assistant appointed by direct recruitment in the District Revenue Unit who has completed a total period of five years passed all the test prescribed and undergone training as Firka Revenue Inspector for a period of two years successfully shall be eligible for inclusion of his name in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars in the District above his seniors appointed other than by direct recruitment or for fixation of his seniority over such seniors if his name has already been included in the list of Deputy Tahsildars. The consideration of his claim shall be against the first vacancy that follows the carried over vacancies”. 8. The consideration of his claim shall be against the first vacancy that follows the carried over vacancies”. 8. It is the submission of the petitioner, that the Assistants, who had completed five years of service and had undergone training as Firka Revenue Inspector for a period of two years were promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The amendment to Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.133 Revenue Dated 07.02.1995 was upheld to be constitutionally valid. 9. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the deletion of his name from the list, filed W.P. (MD)No.804 of 2010, for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents, to include the name of the petitioner. It was during the pendency of the writ petition, the panel which was notified, included the name of the petitioner. 10. It is submitted, that on complaint by some employees, challenging the inclusion of the petitioners that the names of the petitioners were deleted in the Notification. The reason for the deletion of the names of the petitioners was, that they had not undergone 20 months of training, which is mandatory under the Rules. 11. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the orders, deleting the names of the petitioners from the panel, have approached this Court, on the ground, that according to the amended Rules, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.133 Revenue Dated 07.02.1995, the Assistants, appointed by direct recruitment in the District Revenue Unit, on completion of five years of service, and passing all tests and undergoing training as Firka Revenue Inspector for a period of two years were eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The petitioners, being fully eligible, were rightly included in the panel. It is also submitted, that the impugned orders, on the face of it, are arbitrary, as persons junior to the petitioners were retained, whereas names of the petitioners were deleted only for want of training in Collectorate for 20 months, for which, the petitioners cannot be blamed. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends, that it was not permissible for the respondents, to delete the names of the petitioners from the panel of promotion, merely for want of training in Collectorate for the reason, that it was within the power of the employer either to send for training or not to send them for training. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends, that it was not permissible for the respondents, to delete the names of the petitioners from the panel of promotion, merely for want of training in Collectorate for the reason, that it was within the power of the employer either to send for training or not to send them for training. 13. It is further contended, that it is not a case where the petitioners voluntarily opted out of training in Collectorate in spite of opportunity, but it is a case, where the respondents failed to give them a chance to undergo the training. 14. It is rightly contended, that the respondents cannot be allowed, to take benefit of their own wrong, in not sending the petitioners for training in Collectorate, and on that basis to delete the names of the petitioners from the panel while retaining the juniors. 15. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this Court in S.SASISIVANANDAM ..VS.. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, THOOTHUKUDI AND ANOTHER ( 2012 (1) M.L.J. 634 ) laying down, that when the matter of posting of an employee to a particular post lies in domain of the concerned Authority then the employee cannot be blamed for not acquiring the service qualification required for the post. The denial of right to inclusion of employee's name in the panel for promotion on such ground, is not justified. 16. The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of this Court. 17. The learned Additional Government Pleader re-iterated the grounds to contend that the condition of training in Collectorate is mandatory requirement, therefore impugned orders cannot be faulted with, as it is not the case of the petitioners, that they had undergone the training. It is contended, that the petitioners were not eligible for promotion, therefore their names were rightly deleted, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 18. The learned counsel for the third respondent vehemently contended, that the petitioners are not eligible for promotion, as there cannot be a distinction between directly recruited assistants, and the promoted assistants, as they constitute one class. If this fact is taken note of, then number of senior to the petitioners were not promoted. 18. The learned counsel for the third respondent vehemently contended, that the petitioners are not eligible for promotion, as there cannot be a distinction between directly recruited assistants, and the promoted assistants, as they constitute one class. If this fact is taken note of, then number of senior to the petitioners were not promoted. The petitioners therefore cannot claim the right of promotion, by defeating the right of the seniors, specially when the petitioners are not qualified under the Rules. 19. It is also contended, that this Court should take note of the subsequent events that the State of Tamil Nadu, has accepted the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, these writ petitions are to be dismissed. 20. On consideration, I find that these writ petitions deserve to succeed. The contentions raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader, and the learned counsel for the private respondent cannot be taken note of in view of the settled law, that the order of the Authority cannot be justified by additional grounds taken in the counter, much less by the third parties, who have no locus standi to support the impugned order. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHRI LAXMI KANT GOYAL ..VS.. STATE OF HARYANA (2012 (4) R.C.R (CIVIL) 93) has laid down that if reason assigned in an administrative order are bad, the order must fail, as nothing can be added or subtracted thereafter to support the conclusion. 22. If the private respondents are aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their names, the remedy with them is to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law, but they cannot add grounds to the impugned order, to support an order on grounds different from the one given in the impugned order. 23. The only reason given in the impugned order is, that the petitioners had not undergone training in Collectorate for 20 months, which is mandatory requirement. 24. This cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this court in SASISIVANANDAM's case (supra). 25. Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are ordered to be quashed. The first respondent is directed to retain the petitioners' name in the panel for Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2009. No costs. The connected M.P.(MD)Nos.2,2,3 and 3 of 2011, 2 of 2012 are closed.