JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Assistant, on 23.8.1995, at the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Tiruchengode, on compassionate grounds, as his father had died while in service. The petitioner had been appointed in service, by an order passed by the District Educational Officer, Sangagiri, dated 19.8.1995. The petitioner had been promoted to the post of Drawing Master, by the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Salem, dated 28.10.2010, by way of transfer, from the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service to the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service. The petitioner had been posted in the Government High School, Malliyakarai, Salem District. By a subsequent order, dated 2.11.2010, the first respondent had modified the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Salem, dated 28.10.2010, and posted the petitioner as a Drawing Master at the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Chithodu, Erode District, in the scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200, with grade pay of Rs.2,800/-. In the said order, it had been mentioned that the petitioner had been posted as a Drawing Master against the 20% of vacancies earmarked for the Ministerial Service, by way of recruitment by transfer. 3. The petitioner had further stated that, inspite of the order passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Erode, dated 10.11.2010, the Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, Kanthapalayam, Namakkal District, has not relieved the petitioner from service, so as to enable him to join in service in the promoted post. Therefore, the petitioner had made a representation to the District Educational Officer, Namakkal, on 10.12.2010. However, no orders had been passed pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner. While so, the petitioner had been informed that he had been permitted to join at the Government Higher Secondary School, Kanthapalayam, Namakkal, on 5.11.2007, by the order of the District Educational Officer concerned, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings taken against him for his unauthorized absence, from 13.8.2004 to 4.11.2007. However, no disciplinary action had been initiated against the petitioner, for a period of over three years thereafter. No memorandum of charges had been framed. In such circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition, in W.P.No.29399 of 2010. However, no disciplinary action had been initiated against the petitioner, for a period of over three years thereafter. No memorandum of charges had been framed. In such circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition, in W.P.No.29399 of 2010. By an order, dated 23.12.2010, this Court had issued a direction to the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.12.2010, and to pass appropriate orders thereon. 4. It has been further stated that, pursuant to the said order, the District Educational Officer, Namakkal, had issued an order, dated 15.2.2011, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner stating that the period of probation relating to the petitioner had not been declared to have been completed and that certain disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the grounds mentioned in the order of the District Educational Officer, Namakkal, dated 15.2.2011, to reject the request of the petitioner, are not tenable. The petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Assistant, by an order of the District Educational Officer, Sangagiri, dated 19.8.1995. Thereafter, by the order, dated 4.2.1999, the service of the petitioner, in the post of the Junior Assistant, had been regularized, with effect from 23.8.1995, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.171, Department of School Education, dated 27.5.1998. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the petitioner had completed two years of the period of probation. He had attended the Bhavanisagar training meant for the Government Officers, from 22.10.1999 to 20.12.1999. A certificate had also been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had also passed the Government Official Manual Test, previously known as the District Office Manual Test, which had been published in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Bulletin, dated 16.7.2001. As such, the petitioner is eligible to get his period of probation declared, as per Rule 27 of the State and Subordinate Rules. Further, as the petitioner had passed the Bhavanisagar training, on 20.12.1999, and the District Office Manual Test, during the month of May, 1999, the period of the probation of the petitioner should have been declared as completed, on the expiry of the period of three years from the date of his appointment or from the date of the passing of the relevant test. As such, the probation of the petitioner ought to have been declared as completed, on 20.12.1999. However, no orders had been passed by the competent authority declaring the period of probation of the petitioner, as required under Rule 27 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. Therefore, the petitioner would be deemed to have completed the period of probation, on 4.2.2002 itself. 7. It has been further stated that the District Educational Officer, Namakkal, by his order, dated 5.11.2007, had permitted the petitioner to join in service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings sought to be initiated against the petitioner. However, no memorandum of charges had been issued to the petitioner. While so, the third respondent had simply kept the matter pending without taking a decision on it. In the panel for the promotion for the post of Drawing Master, the petitioner has been shown at rank No.11. However, the persons shown at rank Nos.1, 7, 10 and 18, had been permitted to join in the promoted posts, in spite of the fact that the particulars of the period of their probation were not available. As such, the order of the third respondent, dated 15.2.2011, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further stated that in the order of regularization, dated 4.2.1999, it has been stated that the petitioner had to complete two years of probation, within a period of three years. He has further stated that the petitioner had passed the Bhavanisagar training, on 20.12.1999, and the District Office Manual Test, in the examinations held in the month of May, 1999. Therefore, the period of probation of the petitioner should have been declared as completed, on 21.12.1999, itself, as three years period had expired, by then. Even if the period ought to be calculated from the date of the order of regulation, on 4.2.1999, the period of probation should have been declared as completed, on 4.2.2002. However, no orders had been passed refusing to declare the period of probation, as required under Rule 27 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, within a period of six months from the date of completion of the period of probation. However, no orders had been passed refusing to declare the period of probation, as required under Rule 27 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, within a period of six months from the date of completion of the period of probation. Thus, it could be assumed that the petitioner is deemed to have completed the period of probation, on 4.2.2002, on completion of three years from the date of his regularization in service, on 21.12.1999, when the petitioner had passed the Bhavanisagar training test. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further stated that merely for the reason that an order had not been passed declaring the period of probation of the petitioner, it would not be open to the respondents to arrive at the conclusion that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Drawing Master is irregular in nature. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the District Educational Officer, Namakkal, had permitted the petitioner to join in duty without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings to be taken against him, for the period of his absence, by the order, dated 5.11.2007. However, no memorandum of charges had been issued to the petitioner. Even in the impugned order, no particulars had been given regarding the proceedings said to be pending against the petitioner. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5, it has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as the Junior Assistant, on 23.8.1995, at the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Tiruchengode, on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, he had been transferred to the Government High School, S.Pudupalayam, based on certain complaints made against him. However, the petitioner had not joined in duty, in the said school. The petitioner had not applied for leave from 30.8.2004 to 23.7.2007. Further, he had submitted a request for reposting on 23.7.2007. The District Educational Officer, Namakkal, sought clarification, on 24.9.2007, to the Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal, regarding the reposting of the petitioner. The Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal, had issued orders to the District Educational Officer, Namakkal, stating that the petitioner may be permitted to join duty, on humanitarian grounds, and that his absence from 30.8.2004 may be regulated, after obtaining the necessary orders from the Joint Director (Personnel), School Education Department. The Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal, had issued orders to the District Educational Officer, Namakkal, stating that the petitioner may be permitted to join duty, on humanitarian grounds, and that his absence from 30.8.2004 may be regulated, after obtaining the necessary orders from the Joint Director (Personnel), School Education Department. Thereafter, as per the order of the Chief Educational Officer, a reposting had been issued to the petitioner posting him at the Government Higher Secondary School, Kanthampalayam, on 5.11.2007, stating that the disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him for his unauthorized absence. 12. It has been further stated that the service of the petitioner had been regularized in the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist, with effect from 23.8.1995, vide G.O.Ms.No.171, Department of School Education, dated 27.5.1998. He had given the option to the post of Junior Assistant, vide G.O.Ms.No.174, dated 8.9.2000. Accordingly, the service of the Junior Assistant had been regularized, with effect from 23.8.1995. For the declaration regarding the completion of the probation, two conditions had been prescribed. One of the conditions is that the candidate concerned should have successfully completed the Bhavanisagar training test and he should have passed the District Office Manual Test. However, the petitioner had not fulfilled the norms, within the stipulated period, i.e., 22.8.1998. The petitioner had attended the Bhavanisagar training meant for Government Officers, from 22.10.1999 to 20.12.1999 and had passed the District Official Manual Test, on 16.7.2001. Further, if the probation had not been completed within three years, relaxation orders are to be obtained from the Government for the declaration of the probation. However, in the case of the petitioner, such procedures had not been followed. Therefore, the promotion granted in favour of the petitioner, as a Drawing Master, cannot be approved. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 13. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 15.2.2011, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 14. It is noted that the petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Assistant, on 23.8.1995, by an order of the District Educational Officer, Sangagiri, dated 19.8.1995. 14. It is noted that the petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Assistant, on 23.8.1995, by an order of the District Educational Officer, Sangagiri, dated 19.8.1995. Thereafter, he had been promoted to the post of Drawing Master, by the Chief Educational Officer, Salem, by an order, dated 28.10.2010. As per the said order, he had been posted at the Government High School, Malliyakarai, Salem District. By a subsequent order of the first respondent, dated 2.11.2010, he had been posted as a Drawing Master at the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Chithodu, Erode District. However, the Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, Kanthapalayam, Namakkal District, had not relieved the petitioner, so as to enable him to join at the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Chithodu, Erode District, as per the order of the first respondent, dated 2.11.2010. 15. On enquiry, the petitioner had found that he had been permitted to join in service, at the Government Higher Secondary School, Namakkal District, on 5.11.2007, by the order of the District Educational Officer, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings to be taken against him, for his unauthorized absence from duty, from 13.8.2004 to 4.11.2007. 16. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, in W.P.No.29399 of 2010. By an order, dated 23.12.2010, this Court had directed the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.12.2010. However, the District Educational Officer, Namakkal, had rejected the request of the petitioner, by his order, dated 15.2.2011, stating that the period of probation of the petitioner had not been declared as completed and that certain disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. 17. From the records available before this Court, it is noted that, after the petitioner had joined in service as a Junior Assistant, on 23.8.1995, he had been regularized in service, in the post of Junior Assistant cum typist from 23.8.1995, by an order, dated 4.2.1999, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.171, Department of School Education, dated 27.5.1998. In the said order, it had been stated that the petitioner had to complete the two years of probation, within a period of three years. Thereafter, the petitioner had attended the Bhavanisagar training meant for Government Officers, from 22.10.1999 to 20.12.1999. He was given a certificate stating that he had completed the said training, successfully. In the said order, it had been stated that the petitioner had to complete the two years of probation, within a period of three years. Thereafter, the petitioner had attended the Bhavanisagar training meant for Government Officers, from 22.10.1999 to 20.12.1999. He was given a certificate stating that he had completed the said training, successfully. He had also passed a Government Official Manual Test and the said fact had been published in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Bulletin, dated 16.7.2001. As such, the petitioner is eligible to get his probation declared, as per Rule 27 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. He had also passed the Government Test held in the month of May, 1999. 18. From the facts of the present case, it is clear that the probation of the petitioner ought to have been declared as completed, on the expiry of the period of three years from the date of his order of appointment, or from the date of the passing of the relevant tests. Accordingly, the period of probation of the petitioner should have been declared as completed, on 21.12.1999, when he had passed all the relevant tests, by counting three years from the date of his appointment, i.e., 23.8.1995, or from 4.2.2002, when the period of three years had expired, from the date of his regularization in service i.e., 4.2.1999. However, no orders had been passed by the competent authority declaring the probation of the petitioner. No orders had been passed refusing to declare the period of the probation of the petitioner, as required under Rule 27 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. Thus, the probation of the petitioner would be deemed to have been declared as completed. 19. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had not been in a position to substantiate the claim that certain disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner, at the relevant point of time. Even though it has been claimed on behalf of the respondents that certain disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from duty, from 13.8.2004 to 4.11.2007, based on certain charges, it has not been substantiated by sufficient evidence. Even though it has been claimed on behalf of the respondents that certain disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from duty, from 13.8.2004 to 4.11.2007, based on certain charges, it has not been substantiated by sufficient evidence. Thus, it is clear that the reasons stated in the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 15.2.2011, for rejecting the request of the petitioner to relieve him, so as to enable him to join in the promoted post, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 20. In such circumstances, this court finds it appropriate to set aside the order of the respondent, dated 15.2.2011. Consequently, the respondents are directed to relieve the petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant at the Government Higher Secondary School, Namakkal District, so as to enable the petitioner to join in the post of the Drawing Master, as per the order of the first respondent, dated 2.11.2010, and the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Erode District, dated 10.11.2010, and to grant to the petitioner all the service benefits due to him, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.