Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are working as Junior Assistants in Tamil Nadu Electrical Licensing Board. By the impugned order of the first respondent made in Proceedings No. c/th/07-gF-K:g-01 dated 30.05.2007, the respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition, who were juniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Assistant, were given promotion as Assistants. The said order of promotion is challenged by the petitioners by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said order granting promotion to Respondents 2 and 3 and directing promotion of the petitioners 1 and 2 from the date on which the respondents 2 and 3 were sought to be promoted by the impugned order. 2. The case of the petitioners is based on the following footing:- They are the senior most persons in the cadre of Junior Assistants working in the Tamil Nadu Electrical Licensing Board having joined the said post after being appointed through Employment Exchange on 09.05.1985 and 24.05.1985 respectively. The second respondent S.Geetha Malini joined as Computer Operator on 13.08.1990 and thereafter appointed as Junior Assistant on 13.08.1995. Similarly, the third respondent joined the services of the first respondent Board as Junior Assistant on 22.10.1996. Appointment to the post of Assistant is purely by way of promotion from the post of Junior Assistant. When the petitioners' turn for promotion came, they were overlooked and promotion was given to respondents 2 and 3 bypassing the petitioners on the premise that the petitioners had not acquired the necessary qualification in Accountancy. Such a requirement of a pass in the Accountancy Examination (Lower Grade) was introduced only in 2003. The first respondent Board waited till the juniors of the petitioners acquire the said qualification and without giving further time for the seniors (petitioners) to acquire such qualification, they preferred the juniors, namely Respondents 2 and 3 and gave them promotion by the impugned order. 3. The first respondent Board waited till the juniors of the petitioners acquire the said qualification and without giving further time for the seniors (petitioners) to acquire such qualification, they preferred the juniors, namely Respondents 2 and 3 and gave them promotion by the impugned order. 3. Per contra, the respondents contend that previously a pass in the Accountant Test (Lower Grade) or an examination recognized as equivalent to the same was not one of the qualifications prescribed for promotion to the cadre of Assistants in the First Respondent Board; that on the other hand, working knowledge in Accountancy (Book Keeping) was the additional qualification prescribed besides a pass in the Department Examination, namely Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Grade I and that later on, considering the term 'Working Knowledge in Accountancy (Book keeping)' to be ambiguous, the rule was amended by deleting that qualification and substituting in that place a pass in the Accountancy (Lower Grade) besides the pass in the Departmental Test, namely Account Test or any examination recognized as equivalent to the same for subordinate Officers Grade I. According to the respondents, such a rule came to be amended in 2003 itself and since no one in the Cadre of Junior Assistants was able to acquire the qualification for quite a long time, there was no promotion from the cadre of Junior Assistants to the cadre of Assistants till the passing of the impugned order in 2007. It is the further contention raised on behalf of the respondents that time was extended to all the Junior Assistants working in the first respondent Board to acquire the necessary qualification for being promoted as Assistants till 2006, but the petitioners did not acquire the said qualification even during the extended period whereas the respondents 2 and 3 were able to acquire the said qualification in 2006; that again the Board waited for one more year and that only in 2007, the Board chose to promote the Respondents 2 and 3 to the cadre of Assistants. According to the respondents, since the petitioners have not acquired the necessary qualifications for being promoted as Assistants, they cannot be heard to complain that their juniors who have acquired such qualification have been promoted in preference to the petitioners and hence, the present writ petition should be dismissed as the impugned order cannot be assailed on the ground of arbitrariness or unreasonable preference. 4. 4. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a Board resolution proposing an amendment to the Board Regulations was sought to be given effect to by the impugned order without actually amending the regulations and that hence, the impugned order is liable to be struck down. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that besides passing Account Test for Subordinate Officers Grade I, the petitioners have also passed the District Office Mannual Examination which is being insisted upon for promotion to the post of Assistants in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial in the belief that such a qualification was enough for getting the promotion to the post of Assistant in the first respondent Board; that the juniors of the petitioners were promoted Assistants without making necessary amendments in the regulations simply based on the Board resolution proposing amendment and that hence, the impugned order should be held arbitrary and on that ground alone, the same should be set aside. 5. On the other hand Mrs.Varalakshmi, learned senior standing counsel for the first respondent Board, drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the proposal to amendment was approved by the Board in its 123rd meeting and the amendment was approved in Item 12 of the 124th meeting of the Board held on 12.11.2003 and that in view of the same, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that rule was not amended and a simple Board resolution proposing amendment was sought to be given effect is bound to be rejected. It is the further submission made by the learned senior standing counsel for the first respondent that after the amendment of the rule, more than three years time was given to the petitioners to acquire the necessary qualification in Account test to get themselves eligible to be promoted to the next cadre, namely the cadre of Assistants, but they failed to acquire the said qualification; that under such circumstances after waiting for a four long years, the Board was constrained to promote the persons next in seniority, who had acquired the necessary qualification and that the said procedure adopted by the Board in according promotion to the respondents 2 and 3 cannot be found fault with. The learned senior standing counsel also brings it to the notice of the Court that though this writ petition was filed in 2007 itself, till date the petitioners have not passed the Accountancy Test (Lower Grade) and made them eligible to be promoted to the cadre of Assistants. Learned senior standing counsel for the first respondent has also produced the amended regulations for the perusal of the Court. 6. This Court is satisfied that the rule has been amended in 2003 prescribing the following qualification for promotion from the cadre of Junior Assistants to the cadre of Assistants: 1) Pass in the Account Test for Subordinate Officers Grade I 2) Accountancy Test (Lower Grade) or its equivalent approved by the Board or any other qualification recognized by the Board; and 3) A pass in the examination of District Office Manual. 7. But the second qualification has not been acquired by them till date. Of course, the petitioners have acquired the qualification mentioned in Serial Nos.1 and 3. They have not acquired the qualification mentioned in Serial No.2 till date. Therefore, the challenge made by the petitioners to the impugned order giving promotions to Respondents 2 and 3 as Assistants cannot be sustained. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The same has been made in accordance with the regulations of the Board. The challenge made to be same as it has been passed in violation of the regulations is bound to be discountenanced. 8. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.