JUDGMENT 1. Before retirement on superannuation on 31.07.2006, the petitioner worked as Deputy Director in Local Fund Audit Department, Chennai. About 1½ months prior to the date of his retirement, he submitted a representation dated 15.06.2006 to the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tamil Nadu claiming promotion as Joint Director with retrospective effect from 01.11.2005. As no order was passed on the said representation till he retired on 31.07.2006, the writ petitioner filed a previous writ petition in W.P.No.24472 of 2006 on the file of this Court praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2006 and pass appropriate orders. The said writ petition came up before Hon'ble Justice P.Jyothimani, who disposed of the same on 02.08.2006 by issuing a direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Finance Department to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2006 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the said representation of the petitioner was considered by the Government and by an order dated 06.06.2007, the Government rejected the request of the petitioner for retrospective promotion as Joint Director. The order was issued in a letter bearing Letter No.43105/LF/2006 dated 06.06.2007. 2. Aggrieved by and challenging the same, the writ petitioner has again approached this Court with the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned order dated 06.06.2007 and quash the same and to issue a direction to the respondents to confer all the benefits to the petitioner as a Joint Director of Local Fund Audit Department. 3. The prayer of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents on the basis of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. The prayer of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents on the basis of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have contended that there was no irregularity in preparation of the same for promotion to the cadre of Joint Director and the petitioner's claim to be promoted as Joint Director on the premise that two persons holding the posts of Joint Director had to be deputed to the universities for being appointed as Finance Officers was far fetched and that the claim of the petitioner that the expected vacancies in the post of finance officers of the Universities should have been taken into consideration for preparation of the panel for promotion to the cadre of Joint Directors was baseless since the Local Fund Audit Department cannot take into account those posts in calculating the vacancy position because it was entirely in the hands of the Syndicate of the concerned University either to appoint or not to appoint a person whose name shall be found in the panel submitted to the University for consideration. It has also been contended therein that the representation made by the petitioner was considered properly and it was rightly rejected by the impugned order holding that the petitioner had not made out a case. 4. When the matter came up for disposal, Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents advanced their arguments in line with their respective contentions made in the affidavit and the counter affidavit. The arguments advanced on both sides were heard and the materials placed before the Court were also taken into consideration. 5. The admitted facts are as follows: The petitioner joined the Government Services as an Assistant in the Local Fund Audit Department in 1973 and gradually rose to the position of a Deputy Director in the said Department in 1999. Thereafter, there was stagnation in the post and he had to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2006 as a Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit Department. The Local Fund Audit Department is headed by the Chief Auditor of the Department. The next cadre is the cadre of Joint Director and there was only two sanctioned posts of Joint Directors in the Local Fund Audit Department. Next comes the post of Deputy Director. The Local Fund Audit Department is headed by the Chief Auditor of the Department. The next cadre is the cadre of Joint Director and there was only two sanctioned posts of Joint Directors in the Local Fund Audit Department. Next comes the post of Deputy Director. The Category of Deputy Director is the feeder category for the post of Joint Director and the category of Joint Director is the feeder category for the post of Chief Auditor in the Local Fund Audit Department. The post of Chief Auditor and the Joint Directors are admittedly promotional. It is also an admitted fact that at the relevant point of time there were only two sanctioned posts of Joint Directors in the Local Fund Audit Department and the post of Chief Auditor was and is unique. 6. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that apart from the two posts of Joint Directors in the Local Fund Audit Department, the posts of Finance Officers in Tamil Nadu Open University, Chennai and Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore were to be filled up from among the persons holding the posts of Joint Director and above in the Local Fund Audit Department; that the excepted vacancies in the posts of Finance Officers of those two universities ought to have been taken into consideration for estimation of the vacancy position of a particular year to prepare the panel of Deputy Director for promotion as Joint Directors; that the posts of Finance Officers in those universities were not taken into account while preparing the panel for promotion as Joint Directors for the year 2005 and that the same caused prejudice to the petitioner costing him the chance of being promoted as Joint Director. In other words, the contention of the petitioner is that the two posts of Finance Officers in the Universities which were to be filled up on deputation were not taken into account while preparing the panel for promotion to the Cadre of Joint Directors in the Local Fund Audit Department; that he would have been promoted as Joint Director if the two vacancies of Finance Officers in the above said universities were taken into account for estimation of the vacancy position in the cadre of Joint Directors in the Local Fund Audit Department and that since the same was not done he was denied promotion as Joint Director. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a deliberate omission to take into account the expected vacancies in the Finance Officers of the Tamil Nadu Open University, Chennai and Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore was made in order to deny the chance of his being promoted as Joint Director. 7. On the contrary, it is the contention of the respondents that the estimation of vacancies in the post of Joint Directors was made on the basis of number of sanctioned posts of Joint Directors in the Local Fund Audit Department and the writ petitioner's claim that failure to take into account the possibility of Deputation of two joint directors of the Local Fund Audit Department to the universities for being appointed as Finance Officers was quite untenable and the same has got to be rejected as an unjustified claim for the simple reason that neither the petitioner nor any other person could claim a right to be deputed to the universities for being appointed as Finance Officer. It is the further contention of the respondents that unless and until a Joint Director or any Officer holding a higher post in the Local Fund Audit Department is appointed as Finance Officer in any one of the above said universities on deputation, no vacancy would arise in the Local Fund Audit Department as it shall not be obligatory on the part of the Syndicate of the university to appoint a person holding the post of Joint Director in Local Fund Audit Department as its Finance Officer. It is the further contention of the respondents that the appointment to the post of Finance Officer has to be made by the Syndicate of the University from out a panel of three names to be recommended by the Government. 8. The above contention raised on behalf of the respondents has substance in it and the same cannot be rejected as untenable. The fact that the person to be appointed as Finance Officer of Tamil Nadu Open University, Chennai or Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore shall be a person not below the rank of Joint Director in Local Fund Audit Department does not mean that the person should be drawn only from the Local Fund Audit Department. Similarly, it does not mean that any other person holding a higher rank in any other Department cannot be appointed as Finance Officer of the University concerned. 9. Similarly, it does not mean that any other person holding a higher rank in any other Department cannot be appointed as Finance Officer of the University concerned. 9. Unless a person in the cadre of Joint Director in the Local Fund Audit Department whose name is included in the panel submitted by the Government to the University for appointment as Finance Officer is appointed by the Syndicate of the University, his post in the parent Department, namely the Local Fund Audit Department will not fall vacant. The vacancy position cannot be estimated on the mere possibility of a Joint Director from the Local Fund Audit Department being appointed as Finance Officer of either of the above said universities. It is a fact not in dispute that there were only two sanctioned posts of Joint Directors and one post of Chief Accountant in the Local Fund Audit Department. A panel of three persons has to be submitted by the Government to each one of the above said universities for the consideration of its Syndicate to appoint a person as Finance Officer of the concerned University. When the number of posts of Joint Directors in the Local Fund Audit Department is only two and even if the post of Chief Auditor is also taken into consideration, there would be only three persons in the Local Fund Audit Department, who could be included in the panel to be submitted to the university concerned for appointment as Finance Officer. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents, it became practically impossible to send panels of three members of the rank of Joint Directors and above, to each one of the above said Universities. The above said contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader has got to be countenanced. 10. For clearly understanding the position we can refer to the concerned clauses in the Thiruvalluvar University Statute and the Tamil Nadu Open University Statute. Clause 15 (1) and (2) of the Thiruvalluvar University Statute deal with the appointment of Finance Officer. They read as follows: "15(1) The Finance Officer shall be a whole-time salaried officer of the University appointed by the Syndicate for such period as may be specified by the Syndicate in this behalf. Clause 15 (1) and (2) of the Thiruvalluvar University Statute deal with the appointment of Finance Officer. They read as follows: "15(1) The Finance Officer shall be a whole-time salaried officer of the University appointed by the Syndicate for such period as may be specified by the Syndicate in this behalf. (2) Every appointment of the Finance Officer shall be made by the Syndicate from out of a panel of three names of officers not below the rank of Joint Directors of Local Fund Accounts recommended by the Government." Clause 14 of the Tamil Nadu Open University Statute contains a similar provision in Sub-clause (1) and (2) relating the appointment of Finance Officer. 11. Referring to the above said clauses and pointing out the fact that persons below the rank of Joint Directors in Local Fund Audit Department were included in the panel submitted to the universities for appointment as Finance Officers and persons below the rank of Joint Directors were appointed as Finance Officers of those universities, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a meek attempt to contend that the same was done only to deny the writ petitioner promotion to the post of Joint Director and that the writ petitioner was deliberately excluded from the panel for being appointed as Finance Officer of one of the above said universities. 12. Of course, it is obvious from the order impugned in the writ petition that three names were to be considered by the Syndicate of the university concerned for selecting one to be appointed as Finance Officer whereas the total number of posts of Joint Directors in the Local Fund Audit Department was only 2. Hence, the universities opted to appoint persons in the cadre of Deputy Secretary to the Government or Deputy Director in the Local Fund Audit as Finance Officer. It is also obvious from the impugned order that the post of Deputy Finance Officer was filled up by appointing a person in the cadre of Assistant Director of the Local Fund Audit. The same may reveal that the said appointment was not in consonance with the provisions of the concerned University statute. As the University is an autonomous body and its Syndicate is the appointing authority, the Local Fund Audit Department cannot have any control over the Syndicate in the matter of appointment to the post of Finance Officers. The same may reveal that the said appointment was not in consonance with the provisions of the concerned University statute. As the University is an autonomous body and its Syndicate is the appointing authority, the Local Fund Audit Department cannot have any control over the Syndicate in the matter of appointment to the post of Finance Officers. The Local Fund Audit Department does have nothing to do with the appointment of a Finance Officers or Deputy Finance Officers of the Universities concerned. The Government shall be obliged to send a panel for the consideration of the Syndicate of the University concerned for appointment as Finance Officer. If at all the appointment of a Finance Officer or Deputy Finance Officer was made not in accordance with the statute or Rule, those appointments alone can be challenged. No such challenge has been made in this writ petition and the University concerned has also not been made a party respondent. Unless the University is made a party respondent, the question of propriety of the appointment made by the Syndicate of the University cannot be gone into. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he would have been promoted as Joint Director in the Local Fund Audit Department if persons in the cadre of Joint Directors were appointed as Finance Officer of the Universities on deputation is a far fetched claim. The petitioner has not established a direct nexus between the appointment of Finance Officers in the University and the vacancies in the post of Joint Director of Local Fund Audit Department. The petitioner has not made out a clear case that he was deliberately and unreasonably denied promotion when he had a right to be promoted as Joint Director of the Local Fund Audit Department. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to he conclusion that there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is bound to fail. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as costs.