Judgment :- 1. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Societies under Rule 10(a)(i) of General Rules for Tamilnadu State and Subordinate services. In pursuance to the appointment, 1365 Junior Inspectors were posted in the different departments of the Co-operative department throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. The services of the petitioners were thereafter regularised as Junior Inspector by conducting special qualifying examination. 2. The petitioners having passed all the departmental tests and the qualifying examination, became eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Inspector, which resulted in their names being empanelled for promotion as Senior Inspectors of Cooperative Societies. 3. The petitioners were promoted as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies along with 677 other Junior Inspectors who had qualified the departmental examinations. 4. G.O.Ms.No.70, Co-operative, Food and Consumer Protection department, dated 18.3.1996 was issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Rule 48 of General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, to promote 150 Junior Inspectors as Senior Inspectors by granting relaxation of passing departmental, DOM tests, etc. subject to condition of their passing the required tests within a period of three years from the date of promotion. It was also stipulated that in case of non passing of departmental tests within the stipulated period of three years, the subsequent increments on the post of Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies, will be stopped, till passing of the departmental tests. The G.O.Ms.No.70, did not provide for fixation of seniority of 150 Senior Inspectors promoted by relaxing the special rules. 5. The pleaded case of the petitioners is, that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies ordered the placement of 150 Senior Inspectors in the panel for promotion without specifying as to where their names have to be fixed. 6. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 should not have taken suo motu decision to include the names of the 150 Senior Inspectors promoted with stipulation to pass departmental tests within three years of their promotion, with the 677 Senior Inspectors promoted three years prior to their promotion. 7. 6. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 should not have taken suo motu decision to include the names of the 150 Senior Inspectors promoted with stipulation to pass departmental tests within three years of their promotion, with the 677 Senior Inspectors promoted three years prior to their promotion. 7. The names of 150 Senior Inspectors should have been placed below 677 Senior Inspectors, and not in-between 677 Senior Inspectors without adopting any specific yardstick, as 150 Junior Inspectors promoted in the year 1998 were given benefits of relaxation by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.70, Co-operative, Food and Consumer Protection department, dated 18.3.1996, subject to the condition of passing departmental tests within three years. It is submitted that no relaxation was granted for stepping up their seniority retrospectively, particularly over and above the 1995 batch of Senior Inspectors approved on 8.8.1995. 8. It is the case of the petitioners that 150 Senior Inspectors promoted by relaxation, cannot be placed along with 1995 batch Senior Inspectors, as these 150 Senior Inspectors were eligible for regularisation of their services, only after passing the departmental tests. This action of the respondent has jeopardised the legitimate chance of further promotion of the petitioners and has eroded the credibility of the cadre. It is also pleaded that the legitimate chance of promotion against the available vacancies was also affected by this action of the respondent. 9. The other anomaly which resulted by giving seniority to newly promoted Senior Inspectors by relaxation is, that the 34 direct recruits of 1996 batch have been arbitrarily placed under the names of 1998 batch of Senior Inspectors selected through special qualifying examination in a strange manner without any relaxation in any manner. This shows that the manner in which the revised seniority list has been prepared by the respondent, shows the malafide and callous attitude of the respondents. 10. The petitioners came to know about the erroneous inclusion of 150 Senior Inspectors appointed in the year 1998 along with the names of the petitioners, only after publication of Co-operative Sub Registrar's revised panel, dated 7.10.2008 for promotion to the post of Co-operative Sub Registrar. 11. 10. The petitioners came to know about the erroneous inclusion of 150 Senior Inspectors appointed in the year 1998 along with the names of the petitioners, only after publication of Co-operative Sub Registrar's revised panel, dated 7.10.2008 for promotion to the post of Co-operative Sub Registrar. 11. The petitioners have also come to know that the second respondent erroneously prepared the seniority list in the year 2002 by giving placement to 150 Senior Inspectors promoted in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.70, Co-operative, Food and Consumer Protection department, dated 18.3.1996, by clubbing together senior and junior qualified Senior Inspectors who have passed the departmental tests and the unqualified Senior Inspectors who were yet to pass the departmental tests without adhering to any principles, with an obvious reasons to achieve illegal object. 12. The second respondent picked up Senior Inspectors from serial No.370 to 578 from the revised and erroneous seniority list for promoting them as Sub Registrar. Some of the aggrieved Senior Inspectors filed W.P.No.34607 of 2007 to challenge the revised seniority list, dated 1.1.2002. The said writ petition is pending in this Court. In that writ, by way of interim order, this Court directed the second respondent to give promotion to nine writ petitioners, subject to decision of the writ petition. 13. It is also the case of the petitioners, that the second respondent vide order R.C.No.52042/2008/E.M1, dated 7.10.2008 ordered promotion of 237 Senior Inspectors as Co-operative Sub Registrars including 9 batch mates of the petitioners who are the petitioners in W.P.No.34607 of 2007. 14. The second respondent also included 21 Senior Inspectors promoted in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 18.3.1996, out of 236 Senior Inspectors. The nine petitioners in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 were promoted as Co-operative Sub Registrars thereby, denying the right of consideration for promotion to the petitioners, i.e.:- (i) T. Dharanipathi, S.No.398, (ii) M. Anbarasu, S.No.560, (iii) N. Jeevanandam, S.No.574, (iv) M. Kumarasamy, S.No.593, (v) V. Karthikeyan, S.No.599, (vi) M. Loganathan, S.No.614, (vii) K. Venkataraman, S.No.666 (viii) M.Bose, S.No.673, (ix) R.Ravikumar, S.No.677, (x) D. Mohanraj, S.No.687, (xi) I. Kovindarajan, S.No.694, (xii) C. Narayanasamy, S.No.710, (xiii) M.Ramanujam, S.No.756, (xiv) M. Chandran, S.No.764, (xv) M. Rajakandavelu, S.No.774, (xvi) R.Arasu, S.No.791, (xvii) S. Palanisamy, S.No.799, (xviii) R.E. Jayachandran, S.No.810, (xix) A. Ramkumar, S.No.854, (xx) G. Ganesan, S.No.680, (xxi) Ilango 893. 15. 15. The second respondent completely altered the original seniority list in the year 2002, to suit his own convenience, without adopting any specific yardstick, which resulted in wrong fixation of seniority of the petitioners. 16. It is submitted that the action of the second respondent thus, is violative of Rule 35 (aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules which lays down that the seniority of the person in service, Class, Category or Grade shall, where the normal method of recruitment to the service, Class, Category or Grade is by more than one method of recruitment, unless the individual has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment be determined with reference to the date on which he is appointed to the service, Class, Category or Grade. It is also submitted that Rules 36(b) (i) of the Rules lay down that "Promotions in a service or Class to a selection category or to a Selection Grade shall be made on ground of merit and ability, seniority, being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. The inter-se seniority among the persons found suitable for such promotion shall be with reference to the inter-se seniority of such persons in the lower post. The Rule 36(b) (i) speaks about the mode of promotion and placement thereof. Whereas, Rule 35(aa) speaks about the seniority and placement. 17. In the counter, stand of the respondent is that the petitioners along with others were appointed as Junior Inspectors under Rule 10(a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, on temporary basis through various Employment Exchanges to work in the Co-operative Department. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.271, Co-operation, Food and Consumer protection Department, dated 10.11.1988, issued orders for conducting a special qualifying examination by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to regularise the services of the temporary Junior Inspectors. 18. It was under the orders of the State Government that the special qualifying examination was conducted on 15.10.1989 in which 1323 candidates participated out of which 1244 candidates were declared successful. 19. 18. It was under the orders of the State Government that the special qualifying examination was conducted on 15.10.1989 in which 1323 candidates participated out of which 1244 candidates were declared successful. 19. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.116, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 17.5.1995, the Government issued orders relaxing Rules 9 and 10 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Co-operative Subordinate Services in favour of 95 temporary Junior Inspectors to exempt them from undergoing the training prescribed in Rule 10 of the Special Rules, for the commencement of their probation from the date of regularisation of their services and declaration of satisfactory completion of probation as laid down in rule 9 of the Special Rules applicable to Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Societies. 20. This was subject to condition that out of 95 Junior Inspectors shown in the Annexure, 67 temporary Junior Inspectors shown in the Annexure II to the above G.O., who did not possess the qualification of Higher Diploma in Co-operation or Degree in Co-operation were to acquire the qualification in Co-operative training through correspondence course, within a period of three years form the date of promotion as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies failing which their subsequent increments was to be withheld till they acquired the qualification. 21. It is further submitted that names of 677 Junior Inspectors belonging to the Cooperative Department were included in the panel of Junior Inspectors fit for promotion as Senior Inspectors as on 1.5.1995. Thereafter on 8.8.1995 these Junior Inspectors were promoted as Senior Inspectors. In the panel so prepared, the names of the petitioners Tvl.K.Raveendran and 72 others were placed at Sl. Nos. 473, 477, 479, 480, 498, 488, 490, 492, 494, 499, 501, 503, 505, 508, 512, 514, 519, 522, 524, 527, 532, 533, 536, 537, 538, 540, 541, 544, 550, 551, 552, 561, 555, 557, 558, 559, 564, 565, 569, 571, 575, 578, 579, 587, 590, 592, 593, 597, 600, 601, 607, 608, 611, 613, 615, 519, 623, 624, 625, 631, 633, 637, 638, 640, 642, 647, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 664, 667, 669 respectively. 22. 22. It is also submitted that in the meanwhile, it was clarified by the State Government that the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 17.5.1995 would also cover Rules 7 and 11 of the Special Rules, i.e. to say that the Junior Inspectors who failed to pass the Departmental Tests in 4 subjects viz., Co-operation, Auditing, Banking and Book-Keeping and District Office Manual test within a period of 3 years from the date of promotion as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies, their subsequent increment was to be withheld till they clear departmental tests. 23. Vide G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 18.3.1996, the Government issued order extending the relaxation given to the 95 Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Societies, who failed to pass the departmental tests. 24. It is also the case of the respondents that a large numbers of Cooperative Department staff in the category of Cooperative Sub Registrars, Senior Inspectors and Junior Inspectors were rendered surplus, therefore, the promotion panel for the Junior Inspectors could not be approved immediately. Thereafter, a review panel for the Junior Inspectors was approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, dated 26.3.1998 by including the names of 150 Junior Inspectors in the panel. 25. It is the case of the respondents that clarification was sought for fixing the seniority of the Junior Inspectors promoted as Senior Inspectors in the main panel and review panel as on 1.5.1995. The Government vide letter No.9532/CL.2/98-19 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 7.9.2000 issued clarification, that seniority of Junior Inspectors selected through special qualifying examination, promoted as Senior Inspectors during the year 1995-96 and the Junior Inspectors promoted as Senior Inspectors consequent to the relaxation granted in G.O.Ms.No.70, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 18.3.1996 should be fixed based on their seniority in the lower category i.e. Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. It was based on the clarification issued by the Government that the seniority of the Senior Inspectors promoted in the main panel and also in the Review panel was assigned on 6.11.2002. 26. That under these circumstances, Tvl. T. Narasimhavarman and 8 others filed W.P.No.34607 of 2007 in this Court for grant of interim injunction, restraining the respondents from effecting promotions as Co-operative Sub Registrars in any manner based on the revised seniority on 1.1.2002 consisting of 1998 qualified Senior Inspectors over and above the names of 1995 approved list of Senior Inspectors, pending disposal of W.P.No.34607 of 2007. This Court ordered maintenance of Status quo. 27. That as per the establishment list as on 1.1.2002, the panel particulars of Senior Inspectors upto establishment No.578, working in the Regions were called for vide Registrar's letter No.55986/2007 EM.1, dated 10.5.2007 for inclusion in the panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as Co-operative Sub Registrars as on 1.5.2007 and to promote them as Cooperative Sub Registrars. The panel particulars of Senior Inspectors received from the Regions were scrutinised and panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as Co-operative Sub Registrars as on 1.5.2007 was approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 7.2.2008 by including the names of 169 eligible Senior Inspectors. 28. The stand taken in the counter is that order of this Court, dated 8.2.2008 ordering status quo was received by the respondent on 11.2.2008 along with the petitioners representation, dated 8.2.2008, but the panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as Co-operative Sub Registrars was approved on 1.5.2007 by the then Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 7.2.2008 i.e. before receipt of the order of this Court. 29. It was on this account, that this Court modified the order and directed that the petitioners in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 be given promotion subject to result of the writ petition. 30. The stand of the respondent in the counter is that incumbents holding the post of Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies are considered and promoted to the next higher post of Co-operative Sub Registrar as per the seniority number assigned in the category of Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies in the Establishment list as on 1.1.2002. The panel particulars of the Senior Inspectors upto Establishment No.910 in the list as on 1.1.2002 were called for from the regions on 7.5.2008 to consider and promote them as Cooperative Sub Registrar in the panel as on 1.5.2008. The panel particulars were scrutinised and approved by including the eligible Senior Inspectors upto Establishment No.893 as against the estimate of 237 vacancies in the category of Cooperative Sub Registrars. 31. It was submitted that in the panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrars as on 1.5.2008, the names of the petitioners in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 were included in the panel as on 1.5.2008 vide Registrar's proceedings Rc.52042/2008 EM.1, dated 7.10.2008. 31. It was submitted that in the panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrars as on 1.5.2008, the names of the petitioners in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 were included in the panel as on 1.5.2008 vide Registrar's proceedings Rc.52042/2008 EM.1, dated 7.10.2008. Thiru A. Kumeresan, Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 was not found eligible as he had not passed account test for subordinate officers Part I. 32. The stand in the counter is that application has been filed to set aside the order passed in W.P.M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 in which orders yet to be passed by this Court. 33. It is submitted that out of 237 Senior Inspectors approved in the panel as on 1.5.2008 have been allotted to the region in four phases for want of vacancy and that the last 24 Senior Inspectors who were approved in the panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion of Co-operative Sub Registrars as on 1.5.2008 were allotted to regions for posting them as Coop. Sub Registrar vide order dated 7.8.2009. It is denied that 400 vacancies in the category of Coop. Sub Registrars were existing. 34. The stand of the respondent in the counter is, that as per establishment list as on 1.1.2002, as and when the seniority of Senior Inspectors i.e. the petitioners Tvl. K. Raveendran and 72 others reaches their turn, they will also be considered for promotion as Coop. Sub Registrars in the subsequent panels if otherwise qualified. 35. It is submitted that as per Rule 35(f) of the General Rule, the petitioners did not approach the appointing authority for revision of their seniority instead approached this Court. 36. K. Raveendran and 72 others reaches their turn, they will also be considered for promotion as Coop. Sub Registrars in the subsequent panels if otherwise qualified. 35. It is submitted that as per Rule 35(f) of the General Rule, the petitioners did not approach the appointing authority for revision of their seniority instead approached this Court. 36. It is also the case of the respondents that vide G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 17.5.1995 Government issued orders relaxing Rule 9 and 10 of the Special Rules in favour of the 95 temporary Junior Inspectors so as to exempt them from undergoing the training prescribed in Rule 10 of the Special Rules for commencement of their probation from the date of regularisation of their services and declaration of satisfactory completion of probation as laid down in rule 9 of the Special Rules in the category of Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Societies subject to the condition that the 67 temporary Junior Inspectors mentioned in the Annexure II to the G.O., who do not possess the qualification of Higher Diploma in Co-operation or Degree in Co-operation shall acquire the qualification in Co-operative training through correspondence course within a period of three years from the date of promotion as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies failing which their subsequent increments shall be withheld till they acquire the said qualification. Consequently, the names of 677 Junior Inspectors belonging to Cooperative Department were included in the panel of Junior Inspectors fit for promotion as Senior Inspectors as on 1.5.1995 vide proceedings Rc.61422/1995 EM1, dated 8.8.1995 and promoted as Senior Inspectors. The names of the petitioners and 72 others were placed at S.Nos.473, 477, 479, 480, 488, 490, 492, 494, 499, 501, 503, 505, 508, 512, 514, 519, 522, 524, 527, 532, 533, 536, 537, 538, 540, 541, 544, 550, 51, 552, 561, 555, 567, 558, 559, 564, 565, 569, 571, 575, 578, 579, 587, 590, 592, 593, 597, 600, 601, 607, 608, 611, 613, 615, 619, 623, 624, 625, 631, 633, 637, 638, 640, 642, 647, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 664, 667, 669 respectively. But it is not the seniority nos. as contended by the petitioners. 37. It is submitted that in the G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 17.5.1995, the relaxation originally granted to 95 Junior Inspectors were subsequently extended to all the Junior Inspectors in G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 18.3.1996. As per the G.O, only 150 Junior Inspectors were covered for such relaxation. But it is not the seniority nos. as contended by the petitioners. 37. It is submitted that in the G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 17.5.1995, the relaxation originally granted to 95 Junior Inspectors were subsequently extended to all the Junior Inspectors in G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 18.3.1996. As per the G.O, only 150 Junior Inspectors were covered for such relaxation. Out of the above 150 Junior Inspectors, some of them were seniors and some of them were juniors to the petitioners. Therefore, with a view to eradicate the ambiguous position in fixing the seniority in promotion category i.e. Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies, the Government in their letter No.9532/CL2/98-19, dated 7.9.2000 have issued instructions to fix the seniority in the category of Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies who have been promoted during the year 1995-96 and the Junior Inspectors promoted as Senior Inspector, consequent on the relaxation granted in G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 18.3.1996 based on the seniority in the lower category i.e. Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies. Based on the above clarification issued by the Government, the seniority of the Senior Inspectors have been assigned in Registrar's letter Rc.873777/2001/EM.2, dated 6.11.2002. Therefore, the seniority nos. assigned in the above said Registrar's letter for the category of Senior Inspectors is in accordance with rules and Government's instructions and therefore, the second respondent has not taken any suo moto decision as contended by the petitioners. 38. It is submitted that the petitioners and the 150 Junior Inspectors who have covered under the relaxation given in the G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 18.3.1996 were initially appointed as Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies under rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service on temporary basis as such the nature of service of the petitioners and the 150 Junior Inspectors were one and the same, i.e. Temporary service. Therefore, the Government have ordered taking into consideration of their length of service, age criteria to regularise their service by conducting the special qualifying examination and also relaxing certain rules to all the Junior Inspectors. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not come under such relaxation. If they would have come under such relaxation their position might have been changed. Therefore, with a view to treat all the Junior Inspectors equally, the Government have issued orders fixing their seniority based on their performance in the special qualifying examination in the category of Junior Inspectors. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not come under such relaxation. If they would have come under such relaxation their position might have been changed. Therefore, with a view to treat all the Junior Inspectors equally, the Government have issued orders fixing their seniority based on their performance in the special qualifying examination in the category of Junior Inspectors. On the same analogy, seniority has been fixed in the category of Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies based on the seniority in the lower category, i.e. Junior Inspector, as per the Government instructions. 39. It is submitted that the seniority of the petitioners and the 150 Junior Inspectors who have covered under the relaxation given in G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 18.3.1996 were fixed in the category of Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies based on their performance in the special qualifying examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 15.10.1989 so as to regularise their service in the category of Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. Similarly, based on the seniority in the lower category of Junior Inspector, the seniority in the category of Senior Inspector has also been fixed which is in order as per the instructions issued in Government letter No.9532/CL2/1998-12, dated 7.9.2000. Since the Government have issued relaxation to rules 9 & 10 of the Special Rules in respect of all Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies, the next promotion avenue will be based on the seniority fixed in the category of Senior Inspector only. Under these circumstances, it is not acceptable that legitimate expectations of the petitioners chance for promotions in the available vacancies are stalled unconscientiously. 40. The stand of the respondents in the counter is that the seniority of the Senior Inspectors recruited under direct recruitment for the year 1993 -1994 and appointed during the year 1996 have been fixed below the Senior Inspectors promoted in the main panel and review panel. As such, it is not true that the seniority of 34 Senior Inspectors recruited under direct recruitment have been fixed above the name of 1998 batch Senior Inspector as contended by the petitioners. 41. As such, it is not true that the seniority of 34 Senior Inspectors recruited under direct recruitment have been fixed above the name of 1998 batch Senior Inspector as contended by the petitioners. 41. It is also contended that the seniority of the Senior Inspectors promoted in the panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as on 1.5.1995 and the 150 Senior Inspectors promoted consequent on the relaxation given by the Government in their G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 18.3.1996 were fixed based on the seniority in the lower category i.e. Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies as per the instructions issued in Government letter, dated 7.9.2000 and communications to all concerned were sent through the Regional Joint Registrars. Thereafter, based on the above seniority, the Establishment list as on 1.1.2002 in the category of Senior Inspectors have been prepared. 42. The case of the respondents is that based on the above seniority list, the panel particulars of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrar as on 1.5.2002 were called for and the panel was approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide proceedings Rc.161167/2002EM.1, dated 20.6.2003. Thus, it is not acceptable that 150 Senior Inspectors appointed in the year 1998 were erroneously included in the seniority list. The seniority number of Senior Inspectors promoted in the main panel and also in the Review panel have been assigned in Registrar's letter Rc.87377/2001 EM.1, dated 6.11.2002 only after obtaining clarifications from the Government. Hence, there is no need for the revision of the seniority already assigned in the above said Registrar's letter as requested by the petitioners who were promoted as Senior Inspectors in the panel as on 1.5.1995 and based on the above seniority the Establishment list as on 1.1.2002 in the category of Senior Inspectors has been prepared. Under these circumstances, Tvl.T.Narasimhavarman and 8 others have filed a W.P.No.34607 of 2007 in this Court with a prayer to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent from effecting promotions as Co-operative Sub Registrars in any manner operating the revised seniority list on 1.1.2002 consisting of 1998 qualified Senior Inspectors over and above the names of 1995 approved list of Senior Inspector pending disposal of the W.P.No.34607 of 2007. 43. This Court vide order dated 8.2.2008 in W.P.No.34607 of 2007, passed the following order: "Status quo maintained for a period of two weeks post after two weeks." 44. 43. This Court vide order dated 8.2.2008 in W.P.No.34607 of 2007, passed the following order: "Status quo maintained for a period of two weeks post after two weeks." 44. As per the Establishment list as on 1.1.2002 the panel particulars of Senior Inspectors upto Establishment No.578, working in the region were called for in Registrar's letter No.55986/2007 EM.1, dated 10.5.2007 for inclusion in the panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrars as on 1.5.2007 and to promote them as Cooperative Sub Registrars. The panel particulars of Senior Inspectors have been received from the regions, scrutinised and that the panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrars as on 1.5.2007 was approved by Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 7.2.2008 by including the names of 169 eligible Senior Inspectors, they have been allotted to the regions vide proceedings Rc.55986/2007 EM.1, dated 8.2.2008 of Joint Registrar (Finance and Banking) of the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. 45. This Court order dated 8.2.2008 passed in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 was received by the respondent on 11.2.2008 along with the petitioners representation dated 8.2.2008. But the panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrars as on 1.5.2007 was approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 7.2.2008 i.e. Before receipt of order of this Court, dated 8.2.2008. Therefore, maintaining of 'status quo' in this matter as ordered by this Court became infructuous. However, this Court in their order, dated 29.4.2008 in M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 have ordered as follows: "On considering the reasons stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent/Cooperative Society is directed to give promotion to the petitioners as Cooperative Sub Registrars however such promotion shall be subject to the result of W.P. The respondent is directed to carry out such exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Post the main W.P. After vacation." 46. That the panel particulars of Senior Inspectors upto Establishment No.910 in the list as on 1.1.2002 were called for from the regions vide Registrar's letter No.52042/2008 EM.1, dated 7.5.2008 to consider and promote them as Cooperative Sub Registrar in the panel as on 1.5.2008. Post the main W.P. After vacation." 46. That the panel particulars of Senior Inspectors upto Establishment No.910 in the list as on 1.1.2002 were called for from the regions vide Registrar's letter No.52042/2008 EM.1, dated 7.5.2008 to consider and promote them as Cooperative Sub Registrar in the panel as on 1.5.2008. The panel particulars were scrutinised and approved, by including the eligible Senior Inspectors upto Establishment No.893 as against estimate of 237 vacancies in the category of Cooperative Sub Registrars. In the panel of Senior Inspectors fit for promotion as Cooperative Sub Registrar as on 1.5.2008, the names of the petitioners in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 were considered and that the names of Senior Inspectors at Sl.No.1 to 7 and 9 of the W.P.No.34607 of 2007 were found eligible for inclusion in the panel and their names were included in the panel as on 1.5.2008 approved in Registrar's proceedings Rc.52042/2008 EM, dated 7.10.2008. As the petitioner Thiru Kumaresan, Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 has not passed the account test for Subordinate Officers Part I as prescribed in the rules, he is not eligible for inclusion in the promotion panel. In view of the circumstances stated above, it is prayed that the order dated 29.4.2008 passed in W.P.M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.34607 of 2007 be set aside. 47. That the panel particulars of Senior Inspectors upto Establishment No.910 in the list as on 1.1.2002 were called for from the regions vide Registrar's letter No.52042/2008 EM.1, dated 7.5.2008 to consider and promote them as Cooperative Sub Registrar in the panel as on 1.5.2008. The panel particulars were scrutinised and approved by including the eligible Senior Inspectors upto Establishment No.893 and that the names of 21 Senior Inspectors with Establishment No.398, 560, 574, 593, 599,611, 666, 673, 677, 687, 694, 710, 756, 764, 774, 791, 799, 810, 854, 860, 893 were found eligible for inclusion in the panel and their names were included in the panel as on 1.5.2008. 48. That the seniority of the Senior Inspectors promoted in the panel as on 1.5.1995 and Senior Inspectors promoted during the year 1998 have been fixed as per instructions issued in Government letter No.9532/CL2/1998/19, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 7.9.2000 and accordingly, the Sl. Nos. were assigned to the petitioners in the Establishment list as on 1.1.2002 in the category of Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. 49. Nos. were assigned to the petitioners in the Establishment list as on 1.1.2002 in the category of Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. 49. That the names of the petitioners Tvl. K. Raveendran and 72 others was placed at Sl.Nos.473, 477, 479, 480, 498, 488, 490, 492, 494, 499, 501, 503, 505, 508, 512, 514, 519, 522, 524, 527, 532, 533, 536, 537, 538, 540, 41, 544, 550, 551, 552, 561, 555, 557, 558, 559, 564, 565, 569, 571, 575, 578, 579, 587, 590, 592, 593, 597, 600, 601, 607, 608, 611, 613, 615, 619, 623, 624, 625, 631, 633, 637, 638, 640, 642, 647, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 664, 667, 669 respectively in the proceedings of the Joint Registrar (IAAP) in Rc.61442/1995 EM.1, dated 8.8.1995. But it is not the seniority Nos. as contended by the petitioner. The seniority of the Senior Inspectors promoted in the panel as on 1.5.1995 and Senior Inspectors promoted during the year 1998 have been fixed as per the instructions issued in Government letter No.9532/CL2/1998-19, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 7.9.2000 and accordingly, the Sl. Nos. Were assigned to the petitioners as 899, 904, 906, 907, 934, 918, 921, 923, 927, 935, 937, 939, 941, 944, 950, 953, 960, 967, 971, 982, 983, 990, 992, 994, 997, 1001, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1017, 1018, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1030, 1032, 1038, 1044, 1048, 1051, 1053, 1061, 1064, 1066, 1067, 1072, 1076, 1077, 1085, 1089, 1092 respectively, in the Establishment list as on 1.1.2002 in the category of Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. 50. That no separate seniority was fixed in respect of 677 Senior Inspectors promoted in the panel as on 1.5.1995 as contended by the petitioner. The seniority has been fixed to the above Senior Inspectors and also the 150 Senior Inspectors promoted during the year 1998 after obtaining the clarification from the Government. Further, all the above, 827 (677 + 150) Junior Inspectors who have been promoted as Senior Inspectors in the main panel as well as in the Review panel were originally appointed as Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies under rule 10(a)(i)i of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services on temporary basis and their services were regularised by a special concession given by the Government i.e. Conducting special qualification examination during the year 1989. As such, their seniority was also fixed as per the instructions of the Government which has to be accepted by the petitioner on the basis of principles of natural justice. After that no revision was made in their seniority list as contended by the petitioner. 51. That there is no dispute that the rule 35(aa) of the General rules speaks about the seniority of a person appointed to a service and that rule 36(b) (i) of the General Rules speaks about the promotion. It is submitted that the 677 Junior Inspectors promoted in the main panel as on 1.5.1995 and also the 150 Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies promoted in the review panel as on 1.5.1995 were originally appointed under Rule 10(a) (i) basis and their services were regularised by a special concession granted by the Government. Further, exemption was also given to all the Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies vide G.O.Ms.No.70, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 18.3.1996 to rules 9 and 10 of the Special rules so as to enable to promote them as Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. Under these circumstances, the instructions issued by the Government with regard to fixing up of the seniority in the category of Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies have also to be accepted by the petitioners as per the principles of natural justice. 52. That the petitioners have cited an example, which involves 3 modes of recruitment, for which the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 22.9.1984. In the above said Government order is applicable to the particular issue and that it will not be applicable to the petitioner's case, since the petitioners and other 826 Senior Inspectors were appointed by a single mode of recruitment only i.e. on temporary basis. As such, the example cited by the petitioner could not be accepted on the ground that they were recruited by one mode of recruitment only. Further, the Government only have issued orders for the persons recruited by a different mode of recruitment which will be applicable to the particular issue only and the above said Government orders will not be applicable to the petitioner's case, since the petitioner and all other Senior Inspector were initially appointed on temporary basis and that their services were regularised by a special qualifying examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 15.10.1989. Further, the seniority of the 827 Senior Inspectors have been fixed as per the instructions of the Government and not by the suo-motu action of the respondent. As such, the orders of the Government issued with regard to the fixing up of the seniority have to be accepted by the petitioners on the basis of the principles of natural justice. 53. That the inter-se-seniority of 150 Senior Inspectors promoted during the year 1998 (Panel as on 1.5.1995) have been fixed as per the instructions of the Government and that not all the 150 Senior Inspector have been placed above the Senior Inspectors promoted in the year 1995, as contended by the petitioner. Further, the seniority has been fixed after obtaining the clarification from the Government and not as a suo-motu action of the respondent. As such the seniority did not require revision nor it is unjust or liable to be set aside. 54. Further, it is not true that 400 vacancies in the category of Cooperative Sub Registrars are existing as contended by the petitioners. 55. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended; (i) That once it is not disputed that the petitioners were promoted as Senior Inspectors in pursuance to having qualified in the test conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 8.8.1995, and passing of departmental tests, they could not be placed below the persons who were subsequently promoted in pursuance to the relaxation granted by the State Government in the year 1998. The action of the respondent in not framing the seniority list correctly and thereby denying the right of consideration for promotion to the petitioners, is on the face of it arbitrary thus, not sustainable in law. (ii) That action of the respondent defeated the legitimate expectations of the petitioners for being promoted, as the respondents have erroneously prepared the seniority list in the year 2002 by giving placement to 150 Senior Inspectors promoted in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.70 Cooperative, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 7.9.2000, by clubbing Junior and Senior together. (iii) That action of the respondents is discriminatory, as nine of batch mates of the petitioners who filed W.P.No.34607 of 2007 to challenge the revised seniority list, dated 1.1.2002, have been given promotion under the direction of this Court, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. (iii) That action of the respondents is discriminatory, as nine of batch mates of the petitioners who filed W.P.No.34607 of 2007 to challenge the revised seniority list, dated 1.1.2002, have been given promotion under the direction of this Court, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. (iv) The action of the respondents in re-fixation of seniority is also violative of Rule 36(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service rules. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on the decision of the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.247 of 1993 and O.A.No.2583 of 1993 dealing with the seniority of Junior Assistant and others which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 56. The learned Additional Govt. Pleader on the other hand vehemently contended; (i) That the action of the respondents does not call for any interference by this Court, as the seniority list circulated in the year 2002 was framed strictly in accordance with Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner as well as 150 Senior Inspectors who were promoted as Senior Inspectors by relaxation given by the Government by including their names in the review panel. Therefore, their seniority was to be fixed in terms of proviso to Rule 35(aa) of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Services Rules. "35 (a) The seniority of a person in a service, class or category or grade shall unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or other Appointing Authority, as the case may be, subject to the rule of reservation where it applies. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority. *(aa) The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, where the normal method of recruitment to that service, class, category or grade is by more than one method of recruitment, unless the individual has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined with reference to the date on which he is appointed to the services, class, category or grade; Provided that where the junior appointed by a particular method or recruitment happens to be appointed to a service, class, category or grade, earlier than the senior appointed by the same method of recruitment, the senior shall be deemed to have been appointed to the service, class, category or grade on the same day on which the junior was so appointed: Provided further that the benefit of the above proviso shall be available to the senior only for the purpose of fixing inter-se-seniority: Provided also that where persons appointed by more than one method of recruitment are appointed or deemed to have been appointed to the service, class, category or grade on the same day, their inter-se-seniority shall be decided with reference to their age." (ii) That the petitioner cannot take advantage of promotion of nine persons from their batch mates, as it was in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.34607 of 2007, as the promotions are subject to the decision by this Court, and a petition has already been filed for vacating the interim order of this Court. (iii) That objection to seniority list is barred by limitation and thus, not open to challenge. 57. On consideration, I find that there is no merit in the writ petition. It is not disputed that the petitioner as well as 150 Junior Inspectors who were promoted by giving relaxation were appointed under Rule 10(a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Services Rules and was ordered to be regularised by holding special test. 58. It is also not disputed that the appointment of the petitioners and 150 Junior Inspectors promoted by relaxation, were appointed by same recruitment, and that the petitioners were given promotion earlier in view of the passing of departmental test under the rules. 58. It is also not disputed that the appointment of the petitioners and 150 Junior Inspectors promoted by relaxation, were appointed by same recruitment, and that the petitioners were given promotion earlier in view of the passing of departmental test under the rules. The bar to promotion of 150 Senior Inspectors stood vacated, by the order of relaxation of rules by the Government, thereby bringing them on par with the petitioners. 59. Therefore, in view of the proviso to Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Services Rules, no error can be found with the order passed by the Tami Nadu Government in fixing the seniority of Senior Inspector based on their seniority as Junior Inspector. 60. It is not the case of the petitioners that any Junior to the petitioners was promoted except the nine batch mates of the petitioners. The promotion of the batch mates was under the interim order of this Court which is subject to final decision of this Court in the writ petition. This therefore, cannot give any right to petitioner to claim promotion. 61. Once seniority has been framed in accordance with rules, which was not challenged in time, it cannot be said that there is illegality in fixing the seniority of the petitioners. 62. The G.O.Ms.No.70 Co-operative, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 7.9.2000, had clarified that the persons appointed by relaxation were not entitled to increment without passing departmental test, etc., but this condition cannot come in the way of fixing the seniority under the rules. 63. The action of the Government order directing the fixation of seniority though not under challenge, was in any case, as per the Rule 35(aa) which does not call for any interference by this Court. 64. It also cannot be said that legitimate expectations of the petitioners has been defeated, as positive stand taken in the counter is that the petitioners will be considered as per their seniority in the subsequent panel based on availability of posts. 65. It is well settled law, that though right of promotion is a condition of service, but mere chance of promotion is not a condition of service. Therefore, merely because of the relaxation, chance of promotion of petitioners are affected cannot be a ground to challenge the fixation of seniority of 150 Junior Inspectors promoted in the year 2008 vide review panel, after grant of relaxation. 66. Therefore, merely because of the relaxation, chance of promotion of petitioners are affected cannot be a ground to challenge the fixation of seniority of 150 Junior Inspectors promoted in the year 2008 vide review panel, after grant of relaxation. 66. As already noticed above, even the promotion of nine batch mates under the interim order of this Court cannot give any right to the petitioners to claim similar promotion, as no case is made out to interfere with the fixation of seniority or grant of promotion to the petitioners in preference to seniors to the petitioners. No merit, dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2009 is also dismissed. No costs.