Judgment : 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 03.02.2010 and promote the petitioner to the post of Record Clerk from the date on which his juniors were promoted, along with consequential seniority in the post of Assistant, with all monetary benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under : i. The petitioner was appointed as a sub-staff in the Divisional Office of the respondent company at Salem on 26.06.1986. The next promotional post is the post of Record Clerk for which the petitioner should have served for 3 years in the post of sub staff and appeared for Departmental Test. The petitioner, on completion of 3 years of service as sub-staff, appeared for Departmental Test on 07.06.1990 and 08.06.1990 and he was declared successful. ii. As on June 1990, the petitioner was fully qualified to be promoted to the post of Record Clerk. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. However, during 1991, the petitioner, though fully qualified to be promoted as Record Clerk, was not considered and his juniors were promoted. Hence, the petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents. Ultimately, it was only on 05.10.1998, the petitioner was promoted as Record Clerk and his earlier representations were not taken into consideration and even thereafter, the petitioner's representations were not taken note of. iii. This necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P. No.13383 of 2009 for a direction upon the respondents to give notional promotion to the petitioner as Record Clerk. This Court, by order dated 16.07.2009, directed the petitioner's two representations to be considered on merits within a period of ten days. Thereafter, a Contempt Petition was filed since this Court's order was not complied with and subsequently, an order dated 03.02.2010 was passed denying promotion to the petitioner from anterior date. This order is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Mr. Thereafter, a Contempt Petition was filed since this Court's order was not complied with and subsequently, an order dated 03.02.2010 was passed denying promotion to the petitioner from anterior date. This order is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Mr. V. Bharathidasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the proceedings dated 08.06.1990, submitted that the petitioner has been placed in Serial No.14 in the said proceedings which is the list of candidates who have been declared successful in the Departmental Test for promotion to the cadre of Record Clerk and in 1990, the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion under the Scheduled Caste category, but, persons who were junior to him in the list dated 08.06.1990, viz., M. Thangaraj (Serial No.15) and C. Kandasamy (Serial No.19) were given promotion. Further, it is submitted that another set of 25 candidates passed the Departmental Test on 19.06.1991; in the order of promotion dated 28.06.1991, the persons who had passed the Departmental Test on 19.06.1991 and who were juniors to the petitioner, were given promotion, but, the petitioner was retained in the contingent list; similarly, in the promotion order dated 29.05.1992, the petitioner's juniors were promoted in the Scheduled Caste category and the petitioner's name was retained in the contingent list; therefore, the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal. 4. Mr. V. Karthik, learned counsel for the respondents, by drawing the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed, submitted that the Centre-wise and Category-wise vacancies are declared on the basis of rosters maintained by the respondents as per the rules and provisions of promotion policy for Class I to Class IV and insofar as Record Clerks are concerned, the roster is maintained Centre-wise; further, the term "Centre" denotes the offices controlled by a particular Division/s in the city and also includes the Branch Offices; so far as the petitioner is concerned, he falls in the Salem Centre; besides, the final ranking of selected employees is prepared after adding the average of the Confidential Report marks for 3 corresponding performance years, i.e., 3 years much prior to their being considered for promotion. 5. 5. By referring to the tabulated statement in page no.3 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the 1991 and 1992 ranking lists, the petitioner's name appeared in the contingent list (SC) and contingent list (General) respectively, but, they were not cleared; in 1993, there was no vacancy; in 1994, there was no vacancy declared in General and Scheduled Caste categories; similar was the position in 1995, 1996 and 1997; only in 1998, the Scheduled Tribe vacancy was declared as inter-changeable as Scheduled Caste and the petitioner was granted promotion; therefore, the order of promotion granted to the petitioner pursuant to the conversion of the Scheduled Tribe vacancy to Scheduled Caste vacancy, is just and proper. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the proceedings dated 08.06.1990 and 19.06.1991 giving the list of successful candidates who have passed the Departmental Test, are not ranking lists, but, they are lists arranged based on their Roll Number; therefore, it is wrong to state that C. Kandasamy and M. Thangaraj are juniors to the petitioner. 7. 7. It is seen that the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit stating that in 1990, there were 3 vacancies in Salem Division under the General Category, but, they were filled with 1 O.C. candidate and 2 Scheduled Caste candidates, viz., C.Kandasamy and M.Thangaraj, who completed Departmental Test along with the petitioner and placed in Serial No.19 and 15 in the list dated 08.06.1990; subsequently, in the year 1991, there were 9 vacancies, 7 under the General Category and 1 under the Scheduled Caste category and 1 under the Scheduled Tribe category; 7 General Category vacancies were filled up by 6 Scheduled Caste candidates and 1 by Scheduled Tribe candidate; the said C. Kandasamy, who was already promoted in 1990 was once again promoted in the list for the year 1991; further, three persons, viz., Mayilvel, Anbuvel and Varadharajan, who completed the Departmental test only in 1991 who were juniors to the petitioner, were given promotion in 1991 and similarly, the juniors were given promotion in 1992 also and the petitioner was retained in the contingent list and was not considered for promotion till 1998; further, though one Scheduled Tribe vacancy was available from 1992, nobody was considered for promotion to the said post; as per the Service Regulations, if a Scheduled Tribe vacancy remains unfilled continuously for 3 years, the same can be filled up by persons from other category; therefore, at least in the year 1995, the petitioner should have been considered for promotion, but, he was deliberately made to wait till 1998. 8. The respondent Corporation has filed rejoinder to the reply affidavit of the petitioner stating that as per the promotion policy, passing of the Departmental Test is an eligibility criterion to compete in the promotional exercise and mere passing of the Departmental Test does not warrant selection for promotion; further, promotion to the post of Record Clerk is based on seniority (40%), qualification (30%) and work record (confidential report) (30%); C. Kandasamy and M.Thangaraj were placed below in the list of candidates who were successful in the written examination and the list is based on roll number and not marks; however, their aggregate marks were higher than that of the petitioner and it is only under such circumstances, the second respondent was promoted in 1990. 9. 9. However, in paragraph no.3 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is admitted that records pertaining to the marks obtained by C.Kandasamy in 1990 and 1991 are not readily traceable and only in 1998, promotion was granted by inter-mingling of vacancies and therefore, the petitioner was accommodated and promoted in 1998. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. The short question which falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the petitioner could have been denied promotion to the post of Record Clerk during 1990/1991. 12. The petitioner's case is that he had passed the Departmental Test on 08.06.1990 and his name found place in Serial No.14 and two other persons whose names were in Serial Nos.15 and 19 were promoted in 1990. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as well as those two candidates, viz., C. Kandasamy and M. Thangaraj were Scheduled Caste candidates and all three of them were in the Salem Division. In the promotion panel dated 28.06.1990, the petitioner's name did not find place even in the contingent list. On 19.06.1991, another set of candidates passed Departmental Test and for the year 1991, the candidates who passed the test much after the petitioner were considered and promoted. In the said list, the petitioner's name was retained in the contingent list. The same position continued in 1992 as well. It is pertinent to note that as on 29.05.1992, there was one Scheduled Tribe vacancy available. This vacancy continued to remain vacant till 1998 when it was converted and the petitioner, who is a Scheduled Caste candidate, was accommodated and granted promotion. 14. From the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, it is seen that when the petitioner was denied promotion in 1991, he submitted a representation. The Senior Divisional Manager, Salem, by proceedings dated 01.06.1994, addressed the Head Office at Chennai stating that there is a reserved vacancy at Sankagiri caused by the promotion of Shri. P. Mani as Assistant (T) and posted to Dharmapuri and it was requested to examine as to whether the petitioner who was a sub staff then, the only eligible candidate of the Division, whose name is appearing from 1992 ranking list, could be filled up in Sankagiri vacancy. 15. 15. Surprisingly, the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is silent as regards the said recommendation made by the Senior Divisional Manager. On a perusal of this communication dated 01.06.1994, two issues come to light. Firstly, a reserved vacancy arose at Sankagiri on account of the promotion of the existing incumbent. A request was made by the Senior Divisional Manager to examine as to whether the petitioner could be accommodated in the said vacancy, as he was the only eligible candidate in the Division. The second aspect which comes to light is that the Senior Divisional Manager, has stated that the lists dated 08.06.1990 and 19.06.1991 which are list of candidates who have successfully completed Departmental test are ranking list. However, a contrary stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that they are not ranking lists but lists based on roll number. To supplement this stand, it is stated that C.Kandasamy and M.Thangaraj secured higher marks than the petitioner. However, in the rejoinder affidavit, the respondents admitted that the records relating to the marks obtained by C.Kandasamy in 1990 and 1991 are not traceable. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the stand of the petitioner that the list dated 08.06.1990 and 19.06.1991 shall be construed as ranking lists. 16. If that be so, there is no explanation, much less any acceptable explanation, as to how M. Thangaraj and C. Kandasamy superseded the petitioner and were promoted earlier. The said two persons have not been impleaded as respondents in this writ petition. Therefore, any exercise in that direction would not only be futile but also not permissible in law. Hence, this Court would proceed solely on the basis as to whether the petitioner should have been accommodated subsequently. 17. It is an admitted position that if a Scheduled Tribe vacancy remains un-filled for three years, that could be converted and accommodated by a Scheduled Caste candidate. The respondents, having restricted their promotional avenues within a Centre/Division, cannot be ignorant of the roster position which is easily predictable, as the information as regards the reserved candidates is readily available in each Centre. This being the reason, the Senior Divisional Manager addressed the Head Office on 01.06.1994 to accommodate the petitioner in the vacancy at Sankagiri which is a reserved vacancy. This being the reason, the Senior Divisional Manager addressed the Head Office on 01.06.1994 to accommodate the petitioner in the vacancy at Sankagiri which is a reserved vacancy. It is not known as to what steps were taken at the Head Office on such recommendation made by the Senior Divisional Manager. The recommendation made by the Senior Divisional Manager was fully justified and proper. The respondents would state that only in the year 1998, permission was granted for conversion and therefore, the petitioner was promoted in 1998. The reason assigned cannot work prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has all along been ventilating his grievance. The Senior Divisional Manager recommended the petitioner's case in 1994. Therefore, administrative delay at the higher level of the respondent organisation, cannot put an employee to peril and deny his legitimate entitlement for promotional avenues. 18. As observed earlier, since the candidates who have superseded the petitioner have not been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition, the petitioner cannot canvass a case that he should be placed above those persons who were promoted in 1990/1991. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the case of the petitioner that his case ought to have been considered in the Scheduled Tribe vacancy which remained vacant from 1992. 19. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in ground no.(e), has stated that he ought to have been promoted at least in the year 1994. In the light of the above facts, this Court is convinced that the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Record Clerk should have been considered in 1994 in the Scheduled Tribe vacancy which remained vacant for three years. 20. Though the respondents would rely upon their promotion policy to state that mere passing of the Departmental Test is not the sole criterion, there is no record placed before this Court to show the manner in which the candidates were assessed and considered and their relative merits and demerits and the marks obtained. The delay in intermingling of vacancies at higher level cannot be attributed to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be put to a disadvantageous position on account of any administrative or procedural delay. 21. The delay in intermingling of vacancies at higher level cannot be attributed to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be put to a disadvantageous position on account of any administrative or procedural delay. 21. For all the above reasons, this Court holds that the petitioner is eligible to be considered and promoted to the post of Record Clerk from 1994 onwards in the Scheduled Tribe vacancy which remained vacant from 1992 onwards. In the result, the impugned order dated 03.02.2010 passed by the second respondent is set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to promote the petitioner notionally, to the post of Record Clerk with effect from 1994 in the Scheduled Tribe vacancy which remained vacant since 1992 and consequently, grant all other benefits which shall accrue to the petitioner, based on such notional promotion. Such exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.