JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.67, Transport (H1) Department dated 1.10.2013, posting the petitioner as Regional Deputy Director, Salem in the place of the second respondent, who in turn, is sought to be transferred and posted as Works Manager in the place of the petitioner and to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Director of Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department. 2. The case of the petitioner as could be seen in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, in nutshell, is set out hereunder:- (a) The petitioner was appointed as an Automobile Engineer in Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department (MVMD), Government of Tamil Nadu on 5.10.1993 through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He was promoted to the post of Regional Deputy Director as per G.O.(Ms) No.352, Transport (H1) Department dated 1.12.2009 based on his seniority and eligibility. The next avenue of promotion is to the post of Director of Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department. As per the Service Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.547, Transport Department dated 15.5.1979, the post of Director, Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department has to be filled up by promotion and the relevant rules relating to mode of appointment and qualification are usefully extracted hereunder:- APPOINTMENT: Appointment to the post shall be made as follows:- (i) By promotion from the holders of the post of Works Manager in the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Organization. (ii) By recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the post of Superintending Engineer from Tamil Nadu Engineering Service or Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service. THE TABLE. Sl. No. Methods 1 Qualifications 2 1 By promotion A degree in Mechanical Engineering with Automobile as elective. OR A Diploma in Automobile Engineering known as DMIT (Auto) awarded by the Madras Institute of Technology, Chrompet to the Science Graduates. OR A post Diploma in Automobile Engineering known as DME:P.D. (Auto) OR Any other degree in Automobile Engineering approved as equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Engineering recognized by the University Grants Commission, and (2) Must have worked as Works Manager in the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Organization for a period of not less than five years. OR A post Diploma in Automobile Engineering known as DME:P.D. (Auto) OR Any other degree in Automobile Engineering approved as equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Engineering recognized by the University Grants Commission, and (2) Must have worked as Works Manager in the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Organization for a period of not less than five years. (b) As per the Service Rules, the post of Director has to be filled up with a person possessing requisite educational qualification and service as Works Manager in Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department for a period not less than 5 years. The petitioner who is the senior most person working in the post of Regional Deputy Director, has to be considered for promotion to the post of Director. The petitioner, being the senior most Regional Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, was transferred and posted as Works Manager in Government Central Automobile Work Shop, Chennai, when the vacancy arose due to the post of incumbent retired on 31.5.2010 as per G.O.Ms.No.155 Transport (H.1) Department dated 16.6.2010 and the petitioner joined the post of Works Manager on 23.6.2010. As per the Service Rules, the petitioner should have completed five years of service in the post of Works Manager to be qualified for promotion to the post of Director. (c) While the petitioner was working as Works Manager, one vacancy to the post of Director arose in June, 2012 and the petitioner was given full additional charge for the said post until further orders as per G.O.(D) No.47, Transport (H.1) Department dated 25.6.2012. As per the norms, the petitioner is the next person to be given promotion to the post of Director based on his seniority and eligibility. (d) The petitioner has completed more than 3 years and 6 months of service in the post of Works Manager and on completion of five years of service, he will become eligible for promotion to the post of Director. (d) The petitioner has completed more than 3 years and 6 months of service in the post of Works Manager and on completion of five years of service, he will become eligible for promotion to the post of Director. While so, when the petitioner was continuing in the post of Works Manager, having the full additional charge to the post of Director, the first respondent issued the impugned order of transfer in G.O.(D) No.67, Transport (H.1) Department dated 1.10.2013 transferring and posting the petitioner as Regional Deputy Director, Salem in the place of the second respondent and in turn, the second respondent is sought to be transferred and posted as Works Manager with full additional charge to the post of Director, Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, Chennai. (e) The second respondent K.Senthilvel is junior to the petitioner in service, which can be evidenced from the seniority list approved by the department. The petitioner was posted as Works Manager in the year 2010 since he was the senior most person for promotion to the post of Director. While so, based on the impugned order of transfer, the petitioner has been sought to be transferred from the post of Works Manager, which is a feeder category for promotion to the post of Director and thereby depriving his right to get promotion to the post of Director based on his seniority. Hence, the impugned order posting the second respondent, who is a junior to him, to the post of Works Manager with additional charge to the post of Director is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and against the law. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier. 3. This Court, by an order dated 7.10.2013 granted an order of interim stay as prayed for in M.P.No.2 of 2013. On appearance, the first respondent filed counter affidavit along with an application in M.P.No.4 of 2013 to vacate the order of interim stay granted by this Court. 3. This Court, by an order dated 7.10.2013 granted an order of interim stay as prayed for in M.P.No.2 of 2013. On appearance, the first respondent filed counter affidavit along with an application in M.P.No.4 of 2013 to vacate the order of interim stay granted by this Court. In the counter affidavit, the following facts have been set out:- (a) As per the adhoc rules in G.O.Ms.No.252, (TPT) Industries Department, dated 13.2.1970, the persons who have worked as Automobile Engineers in the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department, incharge of the workshop for a period not less than ten years, are eligible to be appointed to the post of Works Manager and as per the adhoc rules vide G.O.Ms.No.481, Transport Department dated 27.3.1986 for the post of Director, one can be appointed by transfer from among the holders of the post of Works Manager or Material Manager in the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department. Hence, the post of Regional Deputy Director, Work Manger and Materials Manager in Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department are interchangeable. No mention has been made in the service rules that only senior has to be appointed. However, based on the seniority, the petitioner was posted as Works Manager. Since many serious complaints have been received against the petitioner, at present, two Deputy Secretaries to Government are conducting official enquiries against the petitioner, which is yet to be finalised. At this juncture, the transfer order has been issued. (b) As per the adhoc rules framed for the post of Director, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department, vide G.O.Ms.No.547, Transport Department dated 15.5.1979, the qualification for promotion to the post of Director is that one should possess the requisite degree and that he must have worked as Works Manager for a period not less than five years. No mention has been made that the service in the post of Works Manager should be continuous. Hence, the total service put up in the post of Works Manager in splits is also taken into account for calculation of five years. (c) On examination, it has been found that no qualified person is available in Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department for giving appointment as the Director of Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department with work experience as Works Manager for the period not less than five years as per the adhoc rules framed for the post of Director, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department vide G.O.Ms. No.547, Transport Department dated 15.5.1979. No.547, Transport Department dated 15.5.1979. Hence, the petitioner has been given additional charge for the post of Director. If no allegations have been received, the petitioner would have continued in the post of Works Manager. Due to many allegations, he was transferred and the interruption has occurred. (d) The petitioner has been transferred from the post of Works Manager in the cadre of Deputy Director to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem for administrative reasons as per the Service Rules adopted for the post of Works Manager / Regional Deputy Director. As per the adhoc rules, vice G.O.Ms.No.481, Transport Department dated 27.3.1986 framed for the post of Deputy Director, the appointment to the post of Deputy Director shall be made as follows:- i. by promotion from among the holder of the post of Automobile Engineers in the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department with work experience as Automobile Engineers in the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department for not less than five years. ii. by transfer from among the holders of the post of Works Manager or Materials Manager in the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department. (e) As per the service rules adopted for the post of Works Manager / Regional Deputy Director, the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Works Manager in the cadre of Deputy Director to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem for administrative reasons. The Works Manager can be posted as Deputy Director because both the posts are interchangeable with same scale of pay. Thus, the counter affidavit of the first respondent sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The second respondent has also filed a counter affidavit in consonance with the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. In addition to that, it has been stated that two enquiries are pending as against the petitioner and they are in the preliminary stage. Because of the pending enquiries only the transfer was effected and hence, the transfer order is not against law or adhoc rules. The post of Works Manager is not yet upgraded as General Manager as claimed by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has been drawing the salary of Deputy Director at Salem. So the two posts are interchangeable with same scale of pay and there is no reversion in cadre. The impugned order of transfer has not resulted any reversion as claimed by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has been drawing the salary of Deputy Director at Salem. So the two posts are interchangeable with same scale of pay and there is no reversion in cadre. The impugned order of transfer has not resulted any reversion as claimed by the petitioner. Thus, the second respondent prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. (A) It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Automobile Engineer in Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department, Government of Tamil Nadu on 5.10.1993. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Regional Deputy Director on 1.12.2009 based on his seniority. On 16.6.2010, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Works Manager in Government Automobile Workshop, Chennai, when the vacancy arose due to the post of incumbent retired on 31.5.2010. The petitioner is holding seniority No.1 and the second respondent is in seniority No.2 in the panel for the post of Regional Deputy Director. As a senior most Regional Deputy Director, the petitioner was posted as Works Manager. The next avenue of promotion is Director, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department. The said post of Director has to be filled up with a person possessing the requisite educational qualification and service as Works Manager in the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Organization for a period not less than five years. There is only one post of Works Manager in the State at Government Central Automobile Works Shop, Chennai. Presently, the petitioner is continuing in the said post from 16.6.2010 and he has completed more than 3-1/2 years. If he continues for a period of another 1-1/2 years in the post of Works Manager, he will become eligible for the post of Director. Further, as on date, he is holding additional charge for the post of Director, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department. While so, the impugned order of transfer came to be passed by transferring the petitioner to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem, in turn, the second respondent, who is junior to the petitioner, is sought to be transferred and posted as Works Manager with full additional charge to the post of Director, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department, Chennai. While so, the impugned order of transfer came to be passed by transferring the petitioner to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem, in turn, the second respondent, who is junior to the petitioner, is sought to be transferred and posted as Works Manager with full additional charge to the post of Director, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department, Chennai. Though the petitioner is the senior most person for promotion to the post of Director, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department, in view of the present impugned order transferring the petitioner to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem, which is not a feeder category for promotion to the post of Director, the petitioner is deprived of his right to get promotion to the post of Director based on his seniority. The present transfer is punitive in nature. Therefore, the same is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and against law and is liable to be set aside. (B) With regard to the submission made in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent to the effect that the post of Regional Deputy Director, Works Manager and Materials Manager in Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department are interchangeable, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the post of Works Manager is now upgraded as General Manager on par with Joint Director as per G.O.(Ms).No.106, Transport (H2) Department dated 17.5.2012 and the grade pay was enhanced to Rs.7,600/- from Rs.6,600/-. In view of the impugned transfer order, the petitioner will get only lesser grade pay. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is mala fide in nature and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. (C) Further, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in 2006 (2) CTC 468 – S.Sevugan v. The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar and another and submitted that if the transfer order appears that it was passed by way of punishment without any enquiry, then the said order is illegal. (D) With regard to the statement made in the counter that complaints are pending against the petitioner, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that uncorroborated allegations / complaints cannot be a ground for transfer and there cannot be any transfer based on complaints resulting in punitive transfer without providing any opportunity. (D) With regard to the statement made in the counter that complaints are pending against the petitioner, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that uncorroborated allegations / complaints cannot be a ground for transfer and there cannot be any transfer based on complaints resulting in punitive transfer without providing any opportunity. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon a judgment reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592 – Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others. 6. (A) Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent submitted that as per the adhoc rules, the post of Regional Deputy Director, Works Manager and Materials Manager in Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department are interchangeable. In fact, no mention has been made in the service rules that only a senior has to be appointed as Works Manager. However, based on seniority, the petitioner was posted as Works Manager. Since many serious complaints have been received against the petitioner, two Deputy Secretaries to Government are conducting official enquiries against the petitioner and hence, the impugned transfer order has been passed. Since it is an interchangeable post, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to say that the transfer to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem is punitive in nature. With regard to this, learned Additional Advocate General, by inviting the attention of this Court to the adhoc rules in G.O.Ms.No.481, Transport Department, dated 27.3.1986, submitted that the post of Deputy Director and Works Manager are interchangeable and therefore, it is incorrect to state that the petitioner was transferred to a lower post. (B) With regard to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the post of Works Manager is now upgraded, it is the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the said upgradation is now only at pre-mature stage. So far, no specific rules have been framed at present for the post to be upgraded by the Government. Upgradation of the post of Works Manager is a matter to be decided by the Government. Therefore, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the post of Works Manager has already been upgraded and now the grade pay is Rs.7,600/- is not correct. Upgradation of the post of Works Manager is a matter to be decided by the Government. Therefore, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the post of Works Manager has already been upgraded and now the grade pay is Rs.7,600/- is not correct. (C) Further, the learned Additional Advocate General has also relied upon the judgment reported in 1991 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 659 - Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, in support of this contention that the Court should not interfere with the transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. He has also relied upon the judgment reported in (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 153 – Indian Oil Corporation v. Parekh Automobiles and another for the same proposition. 7. (A) Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that it is incorrect to state that the post of Works Manager is now upgraded to the post of General Manager in the cadre of Joint Director. The Government Order in G.O.(Ms). No.106 Transport (H2) Department was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu only on 17.5.2012. it is in the proposal stage and not yet implemented. Till the upgradation is implemented, the petitioner cannot say that he was transferred from a higher post to a lower post. (B) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has submitted that as on date, the monetary benefits for the post of Works Manager and Regional Deputy Director are one and the same. Moreover, two enquiries on allegations are pending as against the petitioner. That is the reason why he was transferred from the post of Works Manager, Chennai to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem. (C) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has relied upon the judgment reported in (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 345 – Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G.Vinkata Ratnam and submitted that the transfer neither suffers from violation of any statutory rules nor can it be described as mala fide by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, absolutely no interference is necessary in the impugned order. Therefore, absolutely no interference is necessary in the impugned order. (D) Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has also relied upon the judgment reported in (1989) 3 Supreme Court Cases 445 – Union of India and others v. H.N.Kirtania and submitted that transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in the public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal. (E) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent relied upon the judgment reported in (1980) 3 Supreme Court Cases 29 –Dr.N.C.Singhal v. Union of India and others and submitted that transfer in posts which are in the same grade or are considered equivalent can be effected on administrative exigencies. There cannot be any hostile discrimination in transfer from one post to other when the posts are of equal status and responsibility. For the same proposition, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has also relied upon some other judgments. 8. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. In view of the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the respective parties, the question that falls for consideration is, whether the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Works Manager to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem is punitive in nature. 10. The petitioner herein was appointed as Automobile Engineer on 5.10.1993 and promoted to the post of Regional Deputy Director on 1.12.2009. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is holding seniority No.1 and the second respondent herein is holding seniority No.2 in the panel of Regional Deputy Director. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Works Manager based on his seniority. His next avenue of promotion is to the post of Director of Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department. As per the service rules, to the post of Director, a person should have completed 5 years of service in the post of Works Manager. Only one post of Works Manager is available in the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department. Based on his seniority, the petitioner was appointed to the said post on 16.6.2010. Till the date of impugned order, the petitioner continued in the said post for a period of three years and six months. Only one post of Works Manager is available in the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department. Based on his seniority, the petitioner was appointed to the said post on 16.6.2010. Till the date of impugned order, the petitioner continued in the said post for a period of three years and six months. If he continues in the said post for another 1-1/2 years, he should be qualified to the post of Director. At this juncture, he was transferred to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem by way of the impugned order. 11. Now, it is the case of the respondents that the post of Regional Deputy Director and Works Manager are interchangeable. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that by transfer, the petitioner is posted to a lower post. Further, it is the case of the respondents that there are complaints as against the petitioner and two enquiries are pending. But, according to the petitioner, the post of Works Manager is now upgraded by G.O.(Ms).No.106 Transport (H2) Department dated 17.5.2012 as General Manager in the cadre of Joint director with higher grade pay. Therefore, the impugned transfer to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem is punitive in nature. Whereas, it is the case of the respondents that the said upgradation is only in a proposal stage and unless it is implemented, it cannot be said that the Works Manager post is a upgraded post. 12. In view of the submissions made on either side, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to extract the relevant clauses from the said Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.106, Transport (H2) Department, dated 17.5.2012 and the same is extracted hereunder:- "6. The Director, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department has, therefore, proposed to fill up 96 vacant posts in Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department initially and to create and fill up 63 new posts (as per Annexure) to carryout the above works. He has also proposed to upgrade the existing post of Works Manager, Government Central Automobile Workshop as General Manager in the Cadre of Joint Director as is available in the manufacturer's dealer's workshop for effective delivery of services for the new generation hi-tech vehicles" 10. He has also proposed to upgrade the existing post of Works Manager, Government Central Automobile Workshop as General Manager in the Cadre of Joint Director as is available in the manufacturer's dealer's workshop for effective delivery of services for the new generation hi-tech vehicles" 10. The Government, after careful consideration, have decided to accept the proposal of the Director, Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department and ordered to fill up 96 vacant posts in Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department and to create 63 new posts, to upgrade the existing post of Works Manager Government Central Automobile Workshop, as General Manager and to sanction a sum of Rs.254.83 lakh (Rupees two crore fifty four lakh and eighty three thousand only) (i.e., Rs.159.83 lakh recurring and Rs.95 lakh non-recurring) towards the modernization of Government Central Automobile Workshop". A reading of the above said clauses would show that the Government has already decided to accept the proposal to upgrade the existing post of Works Manager. Moreover, as per the services rules, for the post of Director, one should have completed 5 years of service in the post of Works Manager. The petitioner was appointed as a Works Manager based on his seniority in the post of Regional Deputy Director on 16.6.2010. Now, he has completed 3 years and 6 months in the post of Works Manager. Apart from that, he was also holding the full additional charge for the post of Director. Now, by way of impugned order, he was transferred as Regional Deputy Director, Salem. The post of Regional Deputy Director is not the feeder category to the post of Director. In the instant case, the petitioner who had already completed 3 years and 6 months in the post of Works Manager, if continues in the said post for another 1-1/2 years, he will become eligible for the post of Director. Now, by way of the present transfer to the post of Regional Deputy Director, Salem, the petitioner is deprived of his promotion to the post of Director. Therefore, in my considered opinion, certainly the transfer is punitive in nature. 13. But, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent submitted that based on certain allegations, the petitioner has been transferred. But, the impugned order does not speak about any of the complaints as against the petitioner. Hence, the same cannot be considered at this stage. 14. 13. But, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent submitted that based on certain allegations, the petitioner has been transferred. But, the impugned order does not speak about any of the complaints as against the petitioner. Hence, the same cannot be considered at this stage. 14. When an order is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592 – Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, wherein, in para 16, it has been held as follows:- "16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds- one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principal of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e., on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal." In the instant case, the first respondent by transferring the petitioner from the post of Works Manager to the Post of Regional Deputy Director at Salem made him to be deprived of his right to further promotion to the post of Director. Therefore, I am of the opinion, as observed earlier, the impugned order of transfer is punitive in nature and the same is liable to be set aside. Though the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that there are complaints as against the petitioner and two enquiries are pending against him, that is not the reason stated in the impugned order of transfer. Though the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that there are complaints as against the petitioner and two enquiries are pending against him, that is not the reason stated in the impugned order of transfer. Even assuming for a moment that there are complaints as against the petitioner, the petitioner should have been offered an opportunity before passing the order of transfer. The transfer order passed by the first respondent without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, on the face of it, is illegal. With regard to this, a reference could be placed in the judgment reported in 2006 (2) CTC 468 – S.Sevugan v. The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar and another, wherein, in paras 7 and 8 this Court has held as follows:- "7. It is seen from the impugned order of transfer that it is passed on administrative ground, but it appears that the order was passed by way of punishment and based on the complaint against the conduct of the petitioner. If that be so, the petitioner is certainly entitled for proper opportunity to defend himself as to whether the complaints against him by the Public or by the Headmaster is proper or not by way of an enquiry. 8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the transfer order passed by way of punishment is without any opportunity to the petitioner and on the face of it, the order of transfer is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside." The dictum laid down in the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of transfer is punitive in nature and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. 15. In fine, the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to comply with the requisite period of service in the post of Works Manager, Chennai to become eligible for the promotional post of Director in the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.