ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined in service, as an Inspector of Industries, Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tamilnadu, on 1.11.1973. Subsequently, he had been promoted as an Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce, by way of a Government Order, in G.O. 4D No. 16, dated 4.4.1995. 3. It had been further stated that the petitioner was fully qualified for being promoted, as Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce. A panel had been drawn for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce, for the year 1993-1994. The name of the petitioner had been included in the panel for the year 1993-1994. Later, the name of the petitioner had been approved for being appointed to the post of Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce, for the year 1997-1998, as per the Government Order, in G.O. Ms. 4D No. 164, dated 11.12.1997. While so, certain frivolous charges had been framed against the petitioner, on 3.12.1997, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. In view of the said charges, the petitioner had not been promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce, on 21.1.1998. 4. It has been further stated that, on 15.3.1999, the first respondent had issued a Government Order, in G.O. (2D) No. 10, dated 15.3.1999, dropping the charges levelled against the petitioner, as they had not been proved. Subsequently, the petitioner had been given the promotion, as a Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce, only on 30.4.1999, by way of a Government Order, in G.O. 4(D) No. 24. Thereafter, the seniority of the petitioner, in the post of Deputy Director (Materials), Category II, had been fixed in between A. Danendra Babu and S. Kalirajan. 5. It has been further stated that the next avenue of promotion, which was available, was that of the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce (Engineering), for which the eligibility condition is that the candidate concerned ought to have completed seven years of service, as a Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce, in the case of Diploma Holders. As such, the petitioner was eligible to be promoted, as a Joint Director of Industries and Commerce (Engineering), on 21.1.2005 itself. As such, the petitioner was eligible to be promoted, as a Joint Director of Industries and Commerce (Engineering), on 21.1.2005 itself. While so, a memorandum of charges had been framed against the petitioner, on 26.6.2002. In view of the said charges, the petitioner had not been considered for the post of Joint Director of Industries and Commerce (Engineering). By way of the proceedings, in G.O. Ms. No. 3, dated 19.1.2006, orders had been passed, including the names of three candidates, and one of them, namely, S. Kalirajan, is junior in rank to the petitioner. However, the name of the petitioner had not been included in the panel for the year 2005-2006. 6. It has also been stated that the name of the petitioner had not been included in the panel for the year 2005-2006, even though the petitioner was eligible for promotion, as certain charges, framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, were pending against the petitioner. However, the said charges levelled against the petitioner could not be proved. As such, the charges levelled against the petitioner had been dropped. Thereafter, as the petitioner was on the verge of retirement, he had submitted representations to the respondent stating that he was due to be promoted, as a Joint Director of Industries and Commerce (Engineering), by including his name in the panel for the year 2004-2005. The petitioner had also stated that he was due to retire from service, on 31.12.2006, and that his request for promotion, as Joint Director of Industries and Commerce (Engineering), ought to be granted to him. However, there was no response from the respondents. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner had not been promoted, as per his seniority, due to the pendency of the charges levelled against him, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 8. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner had not been promoted, as per his seniority, due to the pendency of the charges levelled against him, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 8. It has been further stated that, as per the Annexure to Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules for Tamilnadu Industries Service, the qualification for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Engineering) was that the candidate concerned must have served as, a Deputy Director, atleast for a period of seven years, in the case of Diploma Holders. The government had not considered the necessity for the relaxation of the rules, while approving the panel for the post of Joint Director (Engineering), for the year 2005-2006. 9. It has been further stated that the petitioner, who is a Diploma Holder, had been regularized in the post of Deputy Director, on 7.8.1998. Hence, he was eligible for being included in the panel for the post of Joint Director (Engineering), only with effect from 7.8.2005. Further, he was not eligible for being included in the panel, for the year 2005-2006, for the post of Joint Director (Engineering). The petitioner was not eligible, as he did not possess the necessary service qualifications, as on the crucial date of the panel i.e. 15.4.2005. His name had been deferred due to the existence of the charges levelled against him, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. As on 15.4.2005, which is the crucial date for being added in the panel for the post of Joint Director (Engineering), for the year 2005-2006, certain charges had been framed against the petitioner, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner had completed only 6 years and 8 months of service, as against the prescribed service qualification of 7 years of service. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. 10. The petitioner had completed only 6 years and 8 months of service, as against the prescribed service qualification of 7 years of service. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. 10. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on the perusal of the records relating to the matter, it is found that the charges levelled against the petitioner, on 3.12.1997, and on 26.6.2002, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, were frivolous in nature. Therefore, the charges levelled against the petitioner had been dropped, as not proved. As such, the name of the petitioner ought to have been considered for being included in the panel, for the post of Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce, for the year 1997-1998, as well as for the year 2005-2006. 11. Further, as the charges levelled against the petitioner had been dropped, as not proved, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner, for being promoted to the post of Joint Direct of Industries and Commerce (Engineering), notionally, and to grant him all attendant benefits due to him, as per the applicable provisions of law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Petition allowed.