Judgment :- 1. Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 20th December 2011, imposing punishment of censure against the respondent No: 6. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant on 28th February, 1985 at Athur Panchayat Union Elementary School, Michelpatty, Dindigul District. On successful completion of the probationary period, she was confirmed in the service. 3. The petitioner, after completing B.A. (English) and B.Ed. (English), was promoted as B.T. Assistant (English) on 3rd January, 2007. The petitioner also completed her Post Graduation in M.A. (English) and M.Ed. The next channel of promotion to the petitioner is to the post of Middle School Head Master. Being senior, the petitioner's name was included in the panel for promotion in the year 2010-2011. The name of the petitioner was shown at Sl. No: 8 in the panel list. The case of the petitioner is that five persons out of the panel were promoted and the rest could not be promoted for want of vacancy. 4. On upgradation of primary schools, vacancies arose which have not been filled up so far. The case of respondent No: 6, was not considered for promotion due to the pendency of departmental proceedings under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent had directed the 3rd respondent to take a final decision on the charges levelled against the 6th respondent. 6. The 6th respondent admitted the charges and was held guilty, but was imposed a punishment of censure. 7. It was also ordered that the punishment of censure will not be a bar for considering her case for promotion. 8. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground, that it was on account of malafide on the part of the 3rd respondent, that the problem arose as within seven days of the date on which he assumed office the order of punishment was passed which deserves to be set aside. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that as on the date nobody has been given promotion, and both the vacancies are available. 10. The writ petition is totally misconceived, the petitioner seeks to challenge the punishment awarded to the 6th respondent. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the punishment awarded to the 6th respondent. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that as on the date nobody has been given promotion, and both the vacancies are available. 10. The writ petition is totally misconceived, the petitioner seeks to challenge the punishment awarded to the 6th respondent. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the punishment awarded to the 6th respondent. If anybody is aggrieved by the punishment, it is the 6th respondent, who could avail the remedy of appeal, or even employer can also file an appeal if it was felt that punishment is not adequate. The writ petition therefore has been filed with ulterior motive, to steal a march over the senior, by taking out of turn promotion. 11. Therefore, finding no merit, this writ petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.