JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter is squarely covered by more than one decision of this court. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioners are appointed as Typists in Krishnagiri District through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 31.7.2009. The services of the petitioners were regularised by the second respondent on 20.7.2010. The petitioners were issued Certificate for completion of probation by the second respondent in August 2011 and September 2011. Thereafter, certificate was issued by the Land Survey Training Centre, Orathanadu to the petitioners. 4. The Combined Seniority list, dated 16.5.2012 of Junior Assistants and Typists was issued by the second respondent, wherein the names of the petitioners are also included. While so, the third respondent issued order, dated 3.6.2012 promoting Junior Assistants alone as Assistants and the petitioners were not given promotion orders. 5. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were not given promotion on the ground that they did not serve as Junior Assistant for one year for promotion to the post of Assistant. The second respondent passed an order, dated 16.7.2012 promoting 25 Junior Assistants as Assistants in the Rural Development Department in Krishnagiri district. Further, the third respondent issued order, dated 15.12.2012 appointing 73 Assistants by way of direct recruitment in Krishnagiri district overlooking the petitioners. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for direction to promote them in the post of Assistant for the year 2012 and regularise the service of the petitioners as Assistant with effect from 15.3.2012. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.28666 and 30475 of 2012 (K.Ahamed Ali and 14 others vs. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 5 and two others) and also my decision, dated 12.10.2011 in S.Sasisivanandam vs. District Collector, Thoothukudi district, Thoothukudi and another, reported in (2012)1 MLJ 634 . 8. The contention of the petitioners is that they were not given promotion on the sole ground that they did not serve one year as Junior Assistant and therefore, they did not have service qualification. 9. 8. The contention of the petitioners is that they were not given promotion on the sole ground that they did not serve one year as Junior Assistant and therefore, they did not have service qualification. 9. In similar circumstances, it has been held in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the power of posting the employee in a particular post lies within the domain of the concerned authority, the petitioners cannot be denied promotion for want of service qualification. 10. In my view, the issue was decided by the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Para 13 of the judgment, dated 14.2.2013 in W.P.No.28666 and 30475 of 2012 (supra) is extracted hereunder: "13. This Court vide order dated13.4.2012 in W.P.No.9351 of 2012 (A.Badhrachalam vs. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 and another) has held that the power of posting an employee in a particular post lies within the domain of the concerned authority. However, an employee cannot be blamed for non-possessing of required service qualification and denial is not justified." 11. Likewise, para 16 of the judgment reported in (2012)1 MLJ 634 (supra), is extracted hereunder: "16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the judgment of this Court dated 4.9.2007 in W.P.No.47872 and 47885 of 2006 and 7791 of 2007 is squarely applicable to this case. The relevant portion of the above judgment reads as follows: "8. Under these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of inclusion in the panel, on the ground that they did not possess the service qualification. After all, the service qualification cannot be equated to the qualification of a pass in the departmental test. While the pass in a departmental test may be in the hands of the individual, the posting of the individual to a particular post, is not within the hands of the individual. Therefore, the respondents ought to have formulated and implemented a policy providing equal opportunity to all persons to acquire the service qualifications. Since the respondents have failed to do so, the petitioners were not at fault and on that ground, they should not have been omitted to be included in the panel." 12. Therefore, the respondents ought to have formulated and implemented a policy providing equal opportunity to all persons to acquire the service qualifications. Since the respondents have failed to do so, the petitioners were not at fault and on that ground, they should not have been omitted to be included in the panel." 12. In view of these decisions, I am of the view that the writ petitioners are entitled to succeed in the writ petition and the respondents cannot reject the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant on the ground that they did not have service qualification as Junior Assistant for one year. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondent No.2 and 3 to promote the petitioners as Assistant from the date of his immediate juniors were promoted for the year 2012. The respondent No.2 and 3 are also directed to complete the exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.