Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned panel issued vide Proceedings No. 4331/Ew1/2009 dated 18.02.2009 to the limited extent of non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner and to quash the order of rejection passed by the respondent No.1 vide Proceedings No. Po.1/9486/2008 dated 04.07.2009 with consequential direction to include the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 16 in the panel for promotion as Grade I Warder for the year 2008-2009, as approved on 18.02.2009 and to promote him as Grade I Warder with effect from the date of promotion of panel list, with all consequential benefits. 2. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that panel of Grade II Warder/upgraded warder Grade I, fit for promotion as Grade I Warder for the year 2008-2009 was issued by the first respondent by including 16 Grade-II Warders in the Panel. 3. The case of the petitioner is, that on the date of issuance of the panel, there were minimum 16 vacancies for the post of Grade I Warder in the Salem Region. The other 6 vacancies were awaiting sanction order of the Government, as these vacancies had lapsed on account of non-filling up of the posts for more than six months, therefore, these were also required to be filled up. 4. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the person at Sl.No.1, who was included in the panel, namely, Thiru.K.Mohan, ought not to have been included in view of the fact that he was imposed punishment of Censure by Superintendent of Prisons, Central Jail vide order dated 07.01.2009 and was imposed another order of Censure dated 29.01.2009 for a different misconduct. 5. The plea of the petitioner is that if the name of Thiru.K.Mohan would not have been included in the panel, then the petitioner was to be included in the panel at No.16, i.e., as the last person in the panel. 6. It is admitted case of the petitioner that though there were 16 actual vacancies, 15 vacancies were existing on the crucial date of issue of panel, i.e., 15.07.2008. This panel was to be in force from 15.07.2008 till 14.07.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that one Thiru. 6. It is admitted case of the petitioner that though there were 16 actual vacancies, 15 vacancies were existing on the crucial date of issue of panel, i.e., 15.07.2008. This panel was to be in force from 15.07.2008 till 14.07.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that one Thiru. Mathialagan, Sub-Jail, Hosur, was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2009, i.e. within the panel year, therefore, the panel was required to have 16 names, i.e., 15 actual vacancies on the date of panel and one likely vacancy, which was to be made available on 30.06.2009. 7. It is also the case of the petitioner that instead of excluding the name of Thiru.K.Mohan, his name was deliberately included at Sl.No.1 and thereby, the right of the petitioner was infringed. This stand of the petitioner stood vindicated vide proceedings dated 12.03.2009, deleting the name of Thiru. K. Mohan. 8. Further more, Thiru. Mathialagan, Grade I Warder, was permitted to retire on 30.06.2009 and undisputedly, the petitioner, being the 16th person, was required to be included in the panel and thus was entitled to promotion in the panel list. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the action of the respondents in not including the petitioner in the panel is totally arbitrary and thus not sustainable in law, as once the name of Thiru. K. Mohan was deleted, it was duty of the respondent to include the petitioner at Sl.No.16 and give him promotion as per the panel list. 10. The stand of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that in the subsequent panel against the next available vacancies, the petitioner was promoted and has been granted further promotion, therefore, the petitioner can have no grievance to maintain this writ petition. 11. On consideration, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is not understood as to how the person suffering only minor punishment of Censure could be denied the right of consideration for promotion. In any case, there is no necessity to go into this question as Thiru K. Mohan did not challenge the deletion of his name from the panel. 12. Be as it may, it is not the case of the petitioner that any person junior to the petitioner was promoted to a post which could entitle the petitioner to retrospective promotion. In any case, there is no necessity to go into this question as Thiru K. Mohan did not challenge the deletion of his name from the panel. 12. Be as it may, it is not the case of the petitioner that any person junior to the petitioner was promoted to a post which could entitle the petitioner to retrospective promotion. It is settled law that the right to be considered for promotion arises only when the posts are filled up and an employee cannot claim promotion as a matter of right on being eligible, unless and until some junior is promoted without considering his case. In that event only, an employee can seek retrospective promotion. It is for employer to fill up the posts available. 13. In the present case, the petitioner was promoted at his own turn and cannot claim any retrospective promotion in absence of any material showing that any prejudice having been caused to the petitioner by ignoring his claim while promoting the junior to the petitioner to the higher post. 14. It is the admitted case of the petitioner, that at the time of preparation of the panel, there were only 15 vacancies, as the 16th vacancy was only anticipated vacancy. No legal right of the petitioner, therefore, has been infringed. No ground is made out to interfere with the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner while deleting the name of Thiru. K. Mohan. 15. No merit. Dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are also dismissed.