ORDER All these Writ Petitions came to be posted together before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 19.11.2012, as the issues raised in these Writ Petitions are identical. 2. In Writ Petition No.21473 of 2011, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the 1st respondent Additional Director General of Prison dated 28.10.2011, wherein and by which he sought for promotion from the post of Grade I Warder to the post of Assistant Jailor/Chief Head Warder. The relief claimed by him was denied by the impugned order dated 28.10.2011. The petitioner earlier sent a representation on 22.11.2010 and thereafter filed W.P.No.6458 of 2011 seeking for a direction to consider his representation. This Court directed the representation to be considered vide order dated 18.8.2011. It was informed that there is no scope for grant of promotion to the post of Assistant Jailor, since the petitioner has failed in old SSLC and his request cannot be considered for promotion. 3. The contention of the petitioner was that 10th Standard in the old Pattern is equal to the new pattern of SSLC. Even in the call letter given to him, it has been stated that 10th Standard is equivalent to old SSLC. The said Writ Petition was admitted on 14.8.2012. Pending the Writ Petition, in the application for grant of interim stay and direction, only Notice was ordered. 4. Subsequently, W.P.Nos.23951 to 23960 and 23617 of 2012 came to be filed by the petitioners with identical prayers, namely their representations dated 11.8.2012 and 16.8.2012 submitted for promotion to the post of Assistant Jailor based on the educational qualification held by them should be considered. 5. In Writ Petition No.23617 of 2012, it is again for a similar prayer that the petitioners' representation dated 7.8.2012 for promotion to the post of Chief Head Warder to be considered. In that Writ Petition, the learned Special Government Pleader took notice. 6. When those Writ Petitions came up for admission on 11.9.2012, an interim order not to promote any of the juniors of the petitioners until further orders was granted. If any promotion was given already to the juniors, it shall be kept in abeyance and the same shall not be given effect to until further orders. 6. When those Writ Petitions came up for admission on 11.9.2012, an interim order not to promote any of the juniors of the petitioners until further orders was granted. If any promotion was given already to the juniors, it shall be kept in abeyance and the same shall not be given effect to until further orders. Thereafter, in 8.10.2012, this Court held that since the Joint Secretary of the TNPSC in the order dated 25.7.1981 held that a candidate who appeared for SSLC (11th Standard) Public Examination after 11 years of regular schooling but failed in the Examination is eligible for admission to the First year course of the Higher secondary and by virtue of the eligibility for admission to the Higher Secondary Course, he can be considered to possess the Minimum General Educational Qualification prescribed for entry into public service coming under the Public Service Commission. 7. In the batch of Writ Petitions, a common counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent, Additional Director General of Police dated 5.10.2012. It was held by him that the State Government has issued clarification in G.O.Ms.No.337, Education Department dated 24.2.1981 and the clarifications are as follows: i. "Before 1978, students who wrote examinations several times and obtained the required marks could not enter college education. But, they can get employments. After the implementation of compartmental examination system, students who pass SSLC (10 years) after writing examination several times may enter higher secondary studies. Similarly, students who get the required (35%) marks in SSLC (11 Years) after writing examination several times before the implementation of compartmental examination system, may also be considered as fully passed and permitted to join higher secondary studies. ii. Those who have obtained 35% marks or more in each subjects before 1.4.1978 and considered as failed need not write examinations again and obtain 35% marks. Such students are considered as SSLC passed with effect from 1.10.1978. Many persons who have not passed SSLC conducted before the implementation of Compartmental Examination System would have joined in Government services. If such persons had acquired not less than 35% of marks in each subject, they would be considered as SSLC passed with effect from 1.10.1978. iii. Such students are considered as SSLC passed with effect from 1.10.1978. Many persons who have not passed SSLC conducted before the implementation of Compartmental Examination System would have joined in Government services. If such persons had acquired not less than 35% of marks in each subject, they would be considered as SSLC passed with effect from 1.10.1978. iii. Those who have studied Elective subjects in old SSLC and not passed such Elective Subjects before October 1979, but acquired 35% of marks in all subjects other than elective subjects, would be considered as SSLC passed from 1.10.1978." Notwithstanding the same, in paragraph Nos.15 and 16, it was averred as follows: "15. It is submitted that According to rule 36(b)(i) of the General Rules under Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, " promotions in a service or class to a selection category or to a selection grade shall be made on grounds of Merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal." Hence, the contention of the petitioners that they should be promoted based on seniority, without considering the eligibility, is not correct." 8. In Writ Petition No.23617 of 2012, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents dated 5.10.2012. In that counter affidavit, in paragraph No.11, the same averment as set out in the earlier batch was made. 9. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners' cases have been forwarded to the State Government, though they are not eligible to hold the post of Chief Head Warder due to lack of Minimum General Educational Qualification, but if the petitioners pass SSLC in future, they may be considered. As per Rule 36(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, promotion is based upon the grounds of Merit and Ability and seniority will be considered only merit and ability are equal. 10. In the batch of Writ Petitions as noted already, during the month of May 2012 itself, a proposal has been sent by the Department to the State Government, namely on 18.5.2012 for relaxing the relevant Rules in favour of 272 Warders, who are appointed before the year 1995 and lacking the Minimum General Educational Qualification required for promotion and the proposal is under consideration by the Government. 11. 11. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent State Government in W.P.No.23617 of 2012 to pass appropriate orders on the proposal sent by the Additional Director General of Police dated 18.5.2012 in letter No.6226/EW2/2012, within a period of four weeks and communicate the result to the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.