Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the respondent is correct in not including the name of the petitioner in the panel dated 05.02.2013 for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant of the year 2010-2011. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the respondent Department on 17.03.1984. It is an admitted fact that the respondent included the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant for the year 2001, in its proceedings dated 22.04.2002. The petitioner ranks at Sl.No.3 in the said proceedings. However, the petitioner relinquished the promotion as Junior Assistant temporarily for a period of three years. The respondent also passed orders granting temporary relinquishment of promotion for three years from 22.04.2002 to 21.04.2005. 4. It is also an admitted fact that thereafter, the name of the petitioner was included for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant for the year 2005-2006 and he ranks at Sl.No.1 in the said panel dated 16.06.2006. Here again, the petitioner requested for temporary relinquishment of promotion for three years. Accordingly, the respondent passed an order dated 25.07.2006 granting temporary relinquishment of promotion from 23.06.2006 to 22.06.2009. Therefore, after 22.06.2009, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. 5. When the panel dated 05.02.2013, for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant for the year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 was issued, the name of the petitioner was not included. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 16.02.2013 to the respondent setting out the above facts and requested to include his name in the said panel. No order was passed by the respondent forcing him to file this writ petition, as his juniors were included in the said panel. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent and the relevant averment is found in para 4(iii) of the counter affidavit. According to the respondent, though the petitioner possesses educational qualification and also has rendered more than 7 years of service, since he did not undergo training in Record Room in Clerical work for atleast 2 hours a day for a period of one year, he is not included in the panel. According to the respondent, though the petitioner possesses educational qualification and also has rendered more than 7 years of service, since he did not undergo training in Record Room in Clerical work for atleast 2 hours a day for a period of one year, he is not included in the panel. In this regard, para 4(iii) of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder: "4 (iii) Should have undergone training in Record Room in clerical work for atleast two hours a day for a period of one year. But for those who are holding the post of Record Clerk, there shall be no fresh training for them in clerical work." 7. In my view, the averment made in para 4 (iii) of the counter affidavit as well as the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader deserves to be rejected for more than one reason. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was included in the panel of the year 2001 and the panel of the year 2005-2006. Thus, they are now estopped from stating that he did not undergo training in Record Room in Clerical work for atleast 2 hours a day for a period of one year. Even otherwise, I am of the view that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not putting him in 2 hours training as Record Clerk for one year, since the same does not lie in his hand. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments of this Court in support of his contention: M.CHANDRASEKAR AND OTHERS VS. THE DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS inW.P.Nos.47872 of 2007 etc., batch, (decided on 04.09.2007) S.SASISIVANANDAM VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT AND ANOTHER in W.P.No.16697 of 2007 (decided on 12.10.2011) – judgment rendered by me. S.KRISHNAKUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS [ 2011 (8) MLJ 317 ] 9. In similar circumstances, this Court in M.CHANDRASEKAR AND OTHERS VS. THE DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS inW.P.Nos.47872 of 2007 etc., batch, (decided on 04.09.2007) has held as follows: "8. S.KRISHNAKUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS [ 2011 (8) MLJ 317 ] 9. In similar circumstances, this Court in M.CHANDRASEKAR AND OTHERS VS. THE DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS inW.P.Nos.47872 of 2007 etc., batch, (decided on 04.09.2007) has held as follows: "8. Mr.K.Suthakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.18501 of 2006 (C.Periasamy and another v. The District Collector, Dharmapuri], disposed on 09.10.2006 wherein similar considertion was made by this Court and in paragraphs 7 and 8 it is stated as follows: "Para 7: ........ Para 8: ...After all, the service qualification cannot be equated to the qualification of a pass in the departmental test. While the pass in a departmental test may be in the hands of the individual, the posting of the individual to a particular post, is not within the hands of the individual. Therefore, the respondents ought to have formulated and implemented a policy providing equal opportunity to all persons to acquire the service qualifications. Since the respondents have fialed to do so, the petitioners were not at fault and on that ground, they should not have been omitted to be included in the panel." 10. Following the said judgment, I allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.16697 of 2007 dated 12.10.2011. The said paragraph was incorporated in para 16 of my judgment. 11. Thereafter, another learned Judge has considered the similar issue in S.KRISHNAKUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS [ 2011 (8) MLJ 317 ] and paras 7 and 8 are relevant for this case and the same is extracted hereunder: "7. It is also pointed out in the said judgment in paragraph-21 that deputing the petitioner therein for one year training at Bhavani Sagar Institute cannot be attributed to the petitioner and he had not qualified himself though inclusion in the promotion panel for seniority cannot be allowed as it would prejudice the petitioner as he was prevented by the department to undergo the training. Ultimately in paragraphs 28 to 31, it is held thus:- "28. It is no doubt true that in the case of a person who sleeps over his right consciously, the question of showing any indulgence to disturb a well settled seniority will not arise. Ultimately in paragraphs 28 to 31, it is held thus:- "28. It is no doubt true that in the case of a person who sleeps over his right consciously, the question of showing any indulgence to disturb a well settled seniority will not arise. As already pointed out, on the appeal preferred by respondents-3 to 5 dismissed, the seniority of the petitioner remained undisturbed at least upto 2001. There was no occasion for the petitioner to entertain any doubt as to the seniority panel to voice his grievance. He came to know of this fact only when the petitioner's name was not included in the panel prepared for the year 2004 onwards. In the background of this fact, when as per the law declared by this Court, the petitioner's name should have been considered in the seniority list, he having successfully completed the examination well ahead of respondents 3 to 5, the delay in challenging the seniority list, by itself, cannot be held against the petitioner, for the simple reason that the delay on the part of the District Collector had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner by his not having deputed the petitioner to undergo the one year stint in the post of Rural Welfare Officer Grade II and for the foundation training in the Bhavani Sagar Training Institute as required under the Service Rules. 29. In the light of the above facts and in fairness to the claim of the petitioner, taking note of the decisions of this Court as referred to above, the petitioner merits to have his seniority fixed. I do not find any justification in the plea of the respondents on the issue of laches. In so doing, I am conscious of the decision of the Apex Court holding that a settled list of seniority and promotion should not be disturbed at a long distance of time vide the decision reported in (1976) 1 SCC 599 (Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza Vs. Union of India) and (2008) 2 SCC 750 (Union of India Vs. Narendra Singh). 30. Union of India) and (2008) 2 SCC 750 (Union of India Vs. Narendra Singh). 30. Going by the fact that the petitioner had passed all the departmental examinations and the delay in satisfying the service requirement was not attributable to the petitioner, without disturbing the seniority of respondents-3 to 5, I feel that respondents-1 and 2 should place the petitioner in his original place in the order of seniority that at least in future, if and when the time comes, in the matter of granting promotion, the petitioner's name should be considered at the first place. 31. With the above observation, I allow this writ petition thereby set aside the order of the first respondent herein. By so setting aside the impugned order, it is hereby made clear that this Court does not intend to disturb the seniority of respondents-3 to 5, as they had been in service for quite a long number of years. As already pointed out, respondents-1 and 2 should consider the petitioner at the right place of seniority for considering him for further promotion from the post of Assistant to the post of Extension Officer and pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 8. Applying the said judgment, particularly, the principles stating that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not undergoing the 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 and 2. The said notional promotion shall be calculated for all purpose except backwages. The writ petition is disposed with above observations. No costs." 12. 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 and 2. The said notional promotion shall be calculated for all purpose except backwages. The writ petition is disposed with above observations. No costs." 12. Considering the above, the writ petition is allowed and a direction to the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the panel dated 05.02.2013 for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant for the year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 at an appropriate place and promote him as Junior Assistant from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted, on notional basis, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.