JUDGMENT N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. The Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.23752 of 2009 dated 03.01.2011, wherein the appellant has prayed for a direction to include the name of the appellant in the panel for promotion as Joint Commissioner of Labour for the year 2009-2010 by relaxing Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service and promote him as Joint Commissioner of Labour with all consequential benefits. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. It is stated therein that the appellant was not considered for inclusion in the panel, as he was not having the required length of service in the post of Labour Officer, or Administrative Officer or Public Relations Officer for a period of 12 months, under Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Labour Service. Therefore in the year 2008, though vacancy was available 'Nil' panel was drawn and the same is evident from G.O.(D)No.245, Labour and Employment (E1) Department, dated 16.04.2009. Subsequently, the appellant's name was included and before the promotion list was issued, the appellant retired from service on 31.01.2011. Thereafter, vide G.O.(D)No.99, Labour and Employment (E1) Department, dated 28.03.2011, M/s. R.K. Ravishankar and M. Umakanthan who are juniors than the appellant were given promotion. 3. The contention of the appellant is that, posting the appellant in a particular post is the responsibility of the department and the same is evident from the Circular issued by Government in Letter No.36347 S 99-1, P&AR Department, dated 11.01.2000 wherein a direction was issued to all secretaries of various departments to see that persons to be promoted should have required service qualification. The said Letter of the Government reads as follows: "GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (S) DEPARTMENT LETTER NO.36347 S99-1 DATED 11.1.2000 From Thiru. A.P. Muthuswamy, I.A.S. Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai – 600 009. To All Secretaries to Government, Chennai-9. All Heads of Department, The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-3. Sir, Sub: Public Service – Procedures to be followed in cases where experience in particular section of a Department is required for promotion – Instruments – Issued. Ref: From TNPSC.Lr.No.5931: DPD-A5-96, dated 8.4.99. To All Secretaries to Government, Chennai-9. All Heads of Department, The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-3. Sir, Sub: Public Service – Procedures to be followed in cases where experience in particular section of a Department is required for promotion – Instruments – Issued. Ref: From TNPSC.Lr.No.5931: DPD-A5-96, dated 8.4.99. I am directed to state that in certain departments of the Government, training or working experience in a particular wing is a requirement for promotion, appointment to higher post as per Special Rules for such posts. However due to some reasons or the other, the officers are not allowed to acquire the training of experience by posting them to such wing as required in the Special Rules. As a result, it ultimately affects the individual's career and also requires relaxation of relevant service rules. It is not the responsibility of the individual to be sent for training or posted in a particular wing in which working experience is required for promotion/appointment to higher post under special rules, etc. but it is the responsibility of the Department concerned to send him for training or to post him to a particular wing for a specified period required for his promotion/appointment to gain experience. 2. In this connection, the following observations of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3068 of 1997. *It is for the respondents to post the persons in different units to gain experience as required by the rules to make them eligible for promotion appointment and it is not necessary for the applicant to ask for it. It is the responsibility of the department to send persons to other Corporations in such a manner that everyone has equal chance of acquiring a kind of experience insisted upon by the rules unless for a valid reason is denied an opportunity of acquiring experience. This is a part of job of cadre management in a rational manner. This responsibility cannot be shifted to be shoulders of the applicant. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the respondents, that the appellant has not asked for such a posting in a Corporation" 3. This is a part of job of cadre management in a rational manner. This responsibility cannot be shifted to be shoulders of the applicant. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the respondents, that the appellant has not asked for such a posting in a Corporation" 3. In view of the circumstances mentioned in para 1 and 2 above, the Departments of Secretariat and the Head of Department are therefore requested to post the officers to the particular training/wing in which working experience is required for promotion/appointment to higher post under special rules at the earliest, strictly on the basis of seniority and if any, official does not join the training or post in the particular wing when given, be may be informed about the adverse effect of avoiding the posing and a declaration as specified in the Annexure to the letter may be obtained from him and added to his Service Register and Personal File. 4. The above instructions should be strictly adhered to with a view to avoiding any complaints in this regard. Yours faithfully, Sd/- For CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Copy to All Sections in Personnel & Administrative Reforms Departments, Chennai-9. Np 11/1/2000" 4. The issue as to whether the person can be denied promotion for not possessing the service qualification, without his default, if he is otherwise qualified, was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1996 (8) SCC 671 [VIJAYWADA GUNTUR TENALI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS vs. MOVVA RANGA RAO AND OTHERS] and a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.509 to 511 of 2008. In the above said judgments, it is held that the Government servant cannot be denied promotion for want of service qualification, if he was not given a chance to acquire the service qualification by the department head. As the department is bound to place the Government servant in a particular post, to acquire the service qualification, the officer/employee cannot be blamed for not possessing such service qualification. The Department head failed to adhere to the direction issued in the above Government Letter dated 11.01.2000. Similar issue was considered by one of us (NPVJ) in the decision reported in 2012 (4) MLJ 535 [A.BADHRACHALAM vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY / COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI – 600 005 AND ANOTHER]. The Department head failed to adhere to the direction issued in the above Government Letter dated 11.01.2000. Similar issue was considered by one of us (NPVJ) in the decision reported in 2012 (4) MLJ 535 [A.BADHRACHALAM vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY / COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI – 600 005 AND ANOTHER]. In the said judgment, several judgments on this line rendered earlier were followed and held that service qualification can be acquired only if a posting is given in the particular post by the head of the department and the Government servant cannot be blamed. The denial of promotion on that ground alone, if he is otherwise qualified, is unreasonable and arbitrary. 5. Applying the said judgments to the facts of these cases, the writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of, with a direction to the department to give promotion to the appellant in the post of Joint Commissioner of Labour notionally from 01.05.2009, i.e. from the date of promotion vacancy arose for the year 2008-2009 for the purpose of revision of pension alone. The respondent department is directed to pass orders to that effect and revise his pension and pay the arrears of revised pension, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.