Judgment The petitioners were all provisionally selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Typists and allotted to the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services. The petitioners 1 & 2 were allotted to the Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli. Accordingly, they joined as Typists in the year 2009 in the Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli. The third petitioner was allotted to Royapettah Government Medical College in Chennai and accordingly, she joined in the year 2009 and subsequently, on transfer, she joined in the Tirunelveli Medical College. Thus, all the three petitioners are now working as Typists in the Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli. The next avenue of promotion is to the post of Assistant. As per the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, more particularly, as per sub rule (c) of Rule 30, the persons who are working as Typists shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant, provided they have undergone training as Junior Assistants for a period of one year without detrimental to their Typist work. But the petitioners were not given any such training. Therefore, they were found to be ineligible for promotion to the post of Assistants. 2. The first respondent called for a report from the second respondent in respect of the eligible candidates, who are working as Typists, for inclusion of their names in the panel for promotion to the posts of Assistants in the year 2012-13 vide Ref.No.16000/E2/1/12, dated 27.06.2012. The second respondent, in turn, forwarded the same vide proceedings in reference No.47254/E2/2/2012, dated 05.07.2012. In response to the same, the third respondent informed the second respondent that there were no eligible candidates available with the third respondent for inclusion in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistants and that was duly intimated to the second respondent by the first respondent. As a result, in the panel for the year 2011-12, the petitioners were not included for the purpose of promotion. According to the petitioners, though their Juniors were all included for promotion as they had undergone training for Junior Assistants in other Districts, these petitioners have been denied promotion. Aggrieved over the same, they are before this Court with these writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the records carefully. 4. Aggrieved over the same, they are before this Court with these writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the records carefully. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the petitioners' name were not included in the panel for the year 2011-12, because they had not undergone training as Junior Assistants as required under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. It is further stated that as there is no specific rule governing the commencement of clerical training to the Typists, the petitioners cannot have any grievance that they have not been sent for training before 2011-2012. It is further stated that the petitioners were sent for one year training from 01.10.2012, 01.04.2012 and 01.04.2012, respectively. Thus, they have all completed the one year training as Junior Assistants. Thus according to the third respondent, presently they are eligible for promotion and their names are included in the panel for the year 2014-15. 5. I have heard the above submissions. 6. Admittedly, the seniority in the post of Typists is maintained State-wide. But sending a Typist for clerical training is within the wisdom of the immediate employer viz., the Deans of the respective Medical Colleges. The Deans of other Medical Colleges sent the Typists, who were all working under him for one year training, whereas the Dean of Tirunelveli Medical College had not sent the petitioners for one year training. Thus, because of that, the petitioners were not included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistants. For no fault of the petitioners, they have been penalized. This cannot be appreciated. 7. Though there is no specific time limit prescribed in the Rule for sending a Typist for one year training, that cannot be a ground to discriminate the petitioners from others, who are all allotted to other Districts, where they were given one year training immediately after one year. In my considered opinion, on par with their immediate juniors, the petitioners should be treated, otherwise, it would amount to clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon decision in S.Krishnakumar vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. In my considered opinion, on par with their immediate juniors, the petitioners should be treated, otherwise, it would amount to clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon decision in S.Krishnakumar vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and others, reported in (2011) 8 MLJ 317 , wherein, this Court, after having referred to a number of judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, in paragraph No.8 has held as follows: “Applying the said judgment, particularly, the principles stating that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not undergoing training in Bhavani Sagar, the non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 2005-2006 and denying promotion to the petitioner as Assistant on the date when his juniors were given promotion cannot be justified. However, taking note of the subsequent promotion given to the petitioner, the petitioner shall be notionally promoted for the post of Assistant from the date of promotion given to the petitioner's juniors from 15.12.2005. The petitioner is not entitled to get any arrears of salary for the promoted post and the seniority alone is to be given by respondents 1 & 2. The said notional promotion shall be calculated for all purpose except backwages.” 8. The said view taken by the learned Judge squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the instant case also, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for not being sent for training for one year before 2011-12. For the fault on the part of the Dean, Tirunelveli Medical College, the petitioners cannot be penalized. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for similar relief as granted in the above said case. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms: i) The petitioners shall be given promotion as Assistants, by including all their names in the panel for promotion for the year 2011-2012. ii) Their seniority in the post of Assistants shall be fixed based on their original seniority in the post of Typists, above their respective immediate Juniors. iii) The petitioners shall not be entitled for backwages in the post of Assistants from the date of promotion. ii) Their seniority in the post of Assistants shall be fixed based on their original seniority in the post of Typists, above their respective immediate Juniors. iii) The petitioners shall not be entitled for backwages in the post of Assistants from the date of promotion. But their promotion shall be given effect to notionally, retrospectively from the date on which their respective immediate Junior was promoted and their salary will be calculated notionally for the above post for the purpose of fixing their future salary and for further promotion. iv) The first respondent shall issue consequential order giving promotion to the petitioners as Assistants within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).Nos.1 of 2011 and 1 of 2012 are also dismissed. No costs.