JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent / the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai, in Pro.Pdl.No.180/08/N2, dated 26.11.2008, insofar as it relates to non-inclusion of the petitioner's name therein and consequently, to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the said panel for the year 2008-2009 for promotion from the post of Superintendent to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer/Senior Superintendent approved in Pro.Pdl.No.180/08/N2, dated 26.11.2008, at the appropriate place in the said panel in accordance with the petitioner's seniority and notionally promote the petitioner as such with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of her immediate junior with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in Treasuries and Accounts Department in the year 1976. Subsequently, he was promoted as Accountant in the year 1983. He was further upgraded as Superintendent in the year 2001. From 2001 onwards, he is working as Superintendent. 3. The next avenue for promotion for Superintendent is Assistant Treasury Officer / Senior Superintendent. A panel of Superintendents fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer / Senior Superintendent for the year 2008-2009 was prepared by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 26.11.2008. In the said panel, the petitioner was not included. 4. Hence, he filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 5. A counter affidavit is filed refuting the allegations. The crux of the counter affidavit is that the petitioner did not undergo training in Sub-Treasury office for a period of one year, while he was working as Superintendent as on the crucial date of 01.04.2008. Hence, he was not included in the said panel. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not undergoing training in Sub-Treasury office for a period of one year. It is for the department to depute him for training and he could not ask the department to send him for training. According to him, statutory rule was amended by way of G.O.Ms.No.361, Finance (T&A-2) Department, dated 07.07.2004, requiring only two weeks training in Sub-Treasury and four weeks training in District Treasury. It is for the department to depute him for training and he could not ask the department to send him for training. According to him, statutory rule was amended by way of G.O.Ms.No.361, Finance (T&A-2) Department, dated 07.07.2004, requiring only two weeks training in Sub-Treasury and four weeks training in District Treasury. He further relied on the judgment passed by me in W.P.No.1141 of 2009, dated 17.04.2009, which was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.02.2010, when appeal was preferred in W.A.No.1749 of 2009. It is also stated that the said judgment was implemented thereafter by the department. 7. Heard both sides. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not included in the panel only on the ground that he did not undergo requisite training. According to the petitioner, as per the statutory rule, he has already completed 2 weeks training in Sub-Treasury office as on 01.04.2008, the crucial date for drawl of 2008-2009 panel. 9. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner should have undergone one year training in Sub-Treasury. But, admittedly, he did not undergo the training and therefore, he was not considered in the panel. 10. In my view, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not undergoing training in the Sub-Treasury. No employee can demand the department to send him for training and it is for the department to send the concerned person for training in rotation, so that all the employees could have a chance for undergoing training, as to make him available for promotion to the next cadre. If the department fails to do that, the employees cannot be blamed for the same. 11. In a similar circumstances, I have held in W.P.No.1141 of 2009, dated 17.04.2009 (S.Balakrishnan v. the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai and another) that no employee can be denied promotion on the ground that he did not undergo training for the prescribed period, when the department did not send him for training. The above said judgment was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1747 of 2009, dated 24.02.2010. 12. It is a different matter, if the department sent him for training and the employee had chosen not to report for training citing one reason or other. In those circumstances, the employee shall be blamed. The above said judgment was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1747 of 2009, dated 24.02.2010. 12. It is a different matter, if the department sent him for training and the employee had chosen not to report for training citing one reason or other. In those circumstances, the employee shall be blamed. But, as stated above, it is not so in this case. 13. In my view, the judgment passed by this Court, referred to above, squarely covers the present issue. 14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the respondents are directed to include the petitioner's name at the appropriate place in the impugned panel dated 26.11.2008 prepared for promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent / Assistant Treasury Officer and to give promotion notionally from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted. The first respondent is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs.