ORDER: These two writ petitions were filed by the two individuals who are working as Assistants in the Taluk Office at Arcot as well as in the District Revenue Office at Vellore respectively. By an order dated 29.6.2012, their names were removed from the eligible list of Assistants in the panel for the year 2012 and promotions given to them were cancelled by the District Revenue Officer, Vellore, i.e., the third respondent. It was informed that the petitioners were not qualified in terms of Rule 30(c) of the Special Rules relating to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service as they have not undergone training as Junior Assistant for one year and they have been promoted from the post of Typist. Pursuant to the above order, consequential posting orders were given to them posting them as typists. 2. When the writ petitions came up for admission on 6.7.2012, this court while directing the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions, had granted an order of interim stay for a limited period. The interim stay came to be extended from time to time. On notice, the third respondent has filed counter affidavits, dated 15.10.2012 in both writ petitions. 3. Heard both sides. The petitioner in W.P.No.17564 of 2012 Velmurugan joined as typist on 6.8.2009 and the petitioner in W.P.No.17565 of 2012 Kanniyappan joined as typist on 10.8.2009. Their services were regularized in the cadre of typists with reference to the date of their joining. They have successfully completed the period of probation. There were 97 vacancies in the category of Assistants in Vellore District. The crucial date for drawal of panel for the year 2012 was 15.3.2012. Proposals were called for from the subordinate officers for drawal of the promotion list and that proposals were received from the subordinate officers recommending inclusion of names of 9 Typists including the two petitioners and one Junior Assistant and one Village Administrative Officer. At that time, the department was very much concerned with the non availability of qualified candidates for promotion and appointment of large number of long pending vacancies were in the category of Assistants and that by oversight, they ignored the prescribed qualification under the special rule 30(c) in promoting 9 typists including petitioners who have not undergone the Junior Assistant Training for a period of one year. Without reference to the qualification, they were all promoted and posted as Assistants on 10.4.2012. Without reference to the qualification, they were all promoted and posted as Assistants on 10.4.2012. On scrutiny of educational qualifications relating to the petitioners, it was found that all 9 typists have not undergone the Junior Assistant training as required under Rule 30(c) of the Special Rules. 4. Rule 30(c) of the Special rules relating to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service reads as follows : "(c)No Typist shall be eligible for promotion as Assistant or to the posts which carry the scale of pay of Assistant in any department unless he has undergone training as Junior Assistant for a period of one year without detrimental to his Typist work." 5. The petitioners were promoted by misreading of G.O.Ms.No.417, P&AR Department, dated 01.12.1993. The Government order did not authorise promotion of untrained typists to become Assistants without undergoing the training. In fact, by G.O.Ms.No.16, P&AR Department, dated 21.3.2002, it was stated that no typist shall be eligible for promotion as Assistant or to the post which carry the scale of pay of Assistant in any department unless he has undergone training as Junior Assistant for a period of one year without detrimental to the post of typist. 6. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.S.N.Ravichandran are twofold. The first was that without any fault on their part, they have not been been sent for training. Therefore, they should not be penalized. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of this court in S.SasisivanandamVs. District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi and another reported in 2012 (1) MLJ 634 . In that case, while examining the case of promotion to the post of Rural Welfare Officer, Grade-I, this court made the following observation in paragraph 16, which reads as follows : "16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the judgment of this Court dated 4.9.2007 in W.P.Nos.47872 and 47885 of 2006 and 7791 of 2007 is squarely applicable to this case. The relevant portion of the above said judgment reads as follows: "8. Under these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of inclusion in the panel, on the ground that they did not possess the service qualification. After all, the service qualification cannot be equated to the qualification of a pass in the departmental test. The relevant portion of the above said judgment reads as follows: "8. Under these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of inclusion in the panel, on the ground that they did not possess the service qualification. After all, the service qualification cannot be equated to the qualification of a pass in the departmental test. While the pass in a departmental test may be in the hands of the individual, the posting of the individual to a particular post, is not within the hands of the individual. Therefore, the respondents ought to have formulated and implemented a policy providing equal opportunity to all persons to acquire the service qualifications. Since the respondents have failed to do so, the petitioners were not at fault and on that ground, they should not have been omitted to be included in the panel." 7. He also referred to a judgment of this court in W.P.(MD)No.14252 of 2010 in M.F.ThangarajaVs. The Commissioner of Technical Education, The Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy and others dated 30.3.2012, wherein the learned Judge quoted with approval the decision of Sasisivanandam's case (cited supra). That case related to the promotion to the post of Workshop Instructor. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader brought to the notice of this court a recent circular issued by the Revenue Administration, dated 25.10.2012, wherein in paragraphs 2 to 5, it was stated as follows : "2) In G.O(Ms) No.417, P&AR Department, dated 01.12.1993 the Government have ordered a revised procedure, to be adopted while promoting Junior Assistants and Typists as Assistants in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. As per this G.O., a Typist has to undergo one year training as Junior Assistant in addition to regular typing work to be considered for the post of Assistant. However of certain ambiguity, this rule could not be strictly enforced and Government was forced to regularize promotion of 639 typists as Assistants without satisfying this condition. 3) In G.O.(Per) No.567, Revenue {Ser 6(1)} Department, dated 04.09.2006 the Government have regularized the appointment of Assistants from Typists numbering 639 who were promoted without undergoing one year Junior Assistant training by relaxing Rule 30(c) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. This was because these typists could not be given training as Junior Assistant because of administrative problems. 3) In G.O.(Per) No.567, Revenue {Ser 6(1)} Department, dated 04.09.2006 the Government have regularized the appointment of Assistants from Typists numbering 639 who were promoted without undergoing one year Junior Assistant training by relaxing Rule 30(c) of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. This was because these typists could not be given training as Junior Assistant because of administrative problems. It is possible that similarly placed typists are still available in certain districts, who have not been able to get full one year of training as Junior Assistants because of lack of issue of order by the competent authority in time. These cases may be considered for relaxation from the Rule in G.O.Ms.No.417, P&AR (Per B) Department, dated 01.12.1993, Clause 30(c), for promotion into Assistants. 4) In respect of others (i.e.) where typists have not undergone training despite orders having been issued in time, G.O.Ms.No.16 P&AR (Per B) Department, dated 21.02.2002 has to be strictly followed wherein amendment to Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Special Rules has also been issued with retrospective effect from 15.03.1995 and Rule 30(c) has been inserted to the said rules to the effect that "No Typist shall be eligible for promotion as Assistant or to the posts which carry the scale of pay of Assistant in any Department unless he has undergone training as Junior Assistant for a period of one year without detrimental to his Typist work." 5) Further, the District Collectors are hereby instructed to ensure imparting of 1 year training as Junior Assistant to Typists without any reference to vacancy in Junior Assistant cadre and issue order for such training on date of completion of probation itself so that this issue does not crop up again. Wherever such typists are already working they may be immediately ordered to undergo training for 1 year as Junior Assistant irrespective of vacancy in cadre of Junior Assistant." 9. Therefore, to some extent, the present circular has helped the case of the petitioners, but in no circumstances, unless rule 30(c) is exempted in the case of the petitioners, they cannot presume that they acquired the qualification without having undergone the essential training required for the post. In the absence of the petitioner satisfying the necessary statutory qualification, this court cannot be a party to issue a direction contrary to the statutory rules. The writ of mandamus cannot be used for violating the statutory provisions. 10. In the absence of the petitioner satisfying the necessary statutory qualification, this court cannot be a party to issue a direction contrary to the statutory rules. The writ of mandamus cannot be used for violating the statutory provisions. 10. In the light of the above, there is no case made out by the petitioners. Hence both writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.