JUDGMENT : K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 04.06.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.13547 of 2017.) Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 04.06.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.11839 of 2018. Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 04.06.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.20934 of 2018. Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 04.06.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.1146 of 2018. Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent herein dated 19/05/2015 in ref.Proc.No.21359/2015/PA2; dated 05/06/2015 in Proc.No22571/2015/ PA2; dated 27/05/2015 Proc.No.22580/2015/PA2; 27/05/2015 in Proc.No.22590/2015/ PA2 and dated 24/04/2017 Proc.No.18554/2017/PA2 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to draw inter se seniority list in respect of directly recruited assistants and the promotee assistants in conformity with the Annexure IX clause 9 notified under Rule 38 (b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minsiterial Service Rules.) 1. Arising out of a common order, dated 04.06.2018, passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.1146 of 2018; 13547 of 2017; 11839 of 2017 and 20934 of 2015, the writ appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.1683 of 2018; 836 of 2018; 892 of 2018 and 974 of 2018 are filed. 2. The appellants are functioning as Assistants in the Revenue Department of Government of Tamil Nadu at various Districts. They were promoted to the posts of Assistants from the posts of Junior Assistants, Typists etc., in the Revenue Department. For better clarity, the appellants will be called herein after as 'promotee Assistants'. 3. To fill up the post of Assistants in the Revenue Department, appointments are made through direct recruitment as well as by making promotion to the said post from its feeder categories. Accordingly, the private respondents in each writ petition were appointed as Revenue Assistants in various Districts by way of direct recruitment pursuant to their selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Though their date of appointment as direct recruit assistants vary from one District to another, the common fact remains that their appointment was made earlier to the appointment of promotee assistants. 4. Though their date of appointment as direct recruit assistants vary from one District to another, the common fact remains that their appointment was made earlier to the appointment of promotee assistants. 4. From the post of Revenue Assistants, further promotion is to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. Before drawing the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, an inter-se seniority list is prepared for every year among the promotee assistants and direct recruit assistants. In this case, the District Revenue Officer of concerned District has drawn such provisional inter-se seniority list going by the calender year in some districts and panel year in other districts. Aggrieved against such drawal of inter-se seniority list, the direct recruit assistants challenged the same before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, who in turn set aside the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, and remitted the matter back to re-draw the inter-se seniority list as per the panel year. Challenging the said order of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, dated 19.06.2017 as well as the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer, fixing inter-se seniority list, dated 27.11.2017 and the District Collector, dated 31.07.2015, the present writ petitions were filed by the promotee Assistants by contending that for preparing the inter-se seniority list, calender year alone should be followed and not the panel year. The Writ Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed all the writ petitions. Thus, the present writ appeals are filed by the promotee Assistants. 5. The learned Senior Counsels Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan; Mr.R.Singaravelan and Mr.M.Ajmal Khan and the learned counsel Mr.S.Vijayakumar, appeared for the appellants and made their oral submissions. They filed their written submissions as well. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr.K.Chellapandian; Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader; learned counsels Mr.D.Sivaraman; Mr.R.R.Kannan; Mr.V.Paneerselvan and Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, appeared for the respondents and placed their oral submissions. They filed written submissions as well. 7. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the appellants/promotee Assistants are as follows:- (i).Though the Commissioner, Revenue Administration has stated that Calender year should not be followed and that the panel year alone should be followed for the purpose of inter-se seniority of assistants, his order is silent as to what is the panel year for the purpose of inter-se seniority of assistants, which is the basis for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. While fixing the inter-se seniority list, the cyclical order has to be followed as mandated in Annexure IX, Rule 9 irrespective of the date of joining duty of direct recruits. 15th March of every year, would be the crucial date only under Rule 13-A of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and the said Rule is applicable only for preparation of panel for promotion/transfer to the post of Assistants. Therefore, the said date cannot be considered as the crucial date for preparation of panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. Promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar is provided in the Tamil Nadu Special Rules for Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (Special Rules), wherein 15th September is fixed as the crucial date for considering the eligibility of Assistants for the purpose of promotion as Deputy Tahsildar. Therefore, the respondents are not correct in contending that the panel year commences on 15th March of every year in the case of Assistants to consider their seniority. Even going by the stand of the official respondents if at all panel year concept is to be accepted, the panel year for the post of Deputy Tahsildar will be only from 15th September of a year to 14th September of the next year. Therefore, the inter-se seniority has to be fixed on the basis of the cyclical order as on 15th September only and not as on 15th March. The panel year itself cannot be considered for the purpose of drawal of seniority list. Inter-se seniority will include all the persons, who are holding the post of Assistant. (ii).The panel will include only eligible candidates viz., persons, who possess all the required qualifications such as completion of training, departmental test etc., and who do not suffer any disqualification of any punishment. Hence panel is a restricted list depending upon the estimated vacancy alone, whereas inter-se seniority is a full list. Therefore, mixing up of the two is incorrect. If the stand of the direct recruit assistants that they are entitled to higher place in the seniority list on account of their earlier entry into service is to be accepted, it will defeat the very object and purpose of Rule 9 of Annexure IX of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. Therefore, mixing up of the two is incorrect. If the stand of the direct recruit assistants that they are entitled to higher place in the seniority list on account of their earlier entry into service is to be accepted, it will defeat the very object and purpose of Rule 9 of Annexure IX of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. (iii).Rule 9 of Annexure IX is mandatory and applicable to the Revenue Department for the post of Assistants on account of Rule 38(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, which has provided Annexure IX as special rules. Even a panel is drawn, the life of the panel will expire in one year and fresh panel has to be drawn for next year. Therefore, merely because the directly recruited assistants' names have been included in the inter-se seniority list above the promotee assistants, the same cannot give any perennial right for such direct recruit assistants to deny the entitlement of the promotee assistants for their appropriate placement in the seniority list as per the cyclical order. (iv). Even if the directly recruited assistants are allowed placement in the seniority list above the promotee assistants, who came in later, yet they are not eligible for further promotion as Deputy Tahsildar, since they have not undergone one year and 8 months drawing as assistants in the collector's office as per Rule 8 (v) of Annexure IX and as per Rule 10 of Annexure IX, which provided that one year training in collector's office should be after training as Firka Revenue Inspector and a total training of one year and 8 months as Assistant in Collector's office. (v). So far as the directly recruited assistants are concerned, they have been placed in the inter-se seniority list in the earlier year than the year of appointment. For instance in Pudukottai District directly recruited assistants who joined on 12.03.2012 have been placed en masse in the seniority list of the year 2011-2012 by considering 15.03.2012 as the crucial date, ie., within three days of their entry into service. (vi). The promotee assistants who joined service on 30.06.2012 are included in the inter-se seniority list of the year 2012-13. (vi). The promotee assistants who joined service on 30.06.2012 are included in the inter-se seniority list of the year 2012-13. By such inter-se seniority list, the respondents are operating the said inter-se seniority list itself as a permanent one and only if further promotions from such list 2011-12 is made and the such list of 2011-12 is exhausted, they are considering the next list 2012-13 for the purpose of promotion. As such only if all the directly recruited assistants who are included above the promotee assistants are given promotion, then the promotee assistants will be considered for promotion as Deputy Tahsildar. The same will result in grave injustice to the promotee assistants and will defeat the cyclical order and the ratio. 8. Per contra, the sum and substance of the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents are as follows:- (i). The inter-se seniority list is different from the panel for promotion. The words 'irrespective of the date of their joining duty' occurred in Rule 9 Annexure IX is with an intention to hold that the ratio and the cyclical order mentioned in the said Rule shall prevail, irrespective of the date of joining duty. The inter-se seniority list must be prepared in the cyclical order mentioned in Rule 9 Annexure IX. However, it is to be noted that the inter-se seniority list has to be prepared with reference to the preparation of promotion panel. Therefore, necessarily the inter-se seniority list must be prepared preceding the preparation of the promotion panel. (ii). Though the Rules do not contemplate for any cut-off date for preparing an inter-se seniority list, necessarily the said seniority list must precede the promotion panel. For preparation of the panel for promotion, Rule 13-A of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, contemplates 15th of March of every year as the crucial date. So while preparing a panel for promotion on the said crucial date, necessarily the employer must have the inter-se seniority list in his hands. An inter-se seniority list cannot be prepared without reference to any cut-off date. Therefore, the cut-off date for the promotion panel could be taken as the cut-off date for the inter-se seniority list. There is no prohibition for the same. (iii). Whether it is the calender year concept or panel year concept, there will be persons affected by either of the concept. Therefore, the cut-off date for the promotion panel could be taken as the cut-off date for the inter-se seniority list. There is no prohibition for the same. (iii). Whether it is the calender year concept or panel year concept, there will be persons affected by either of the concept. Since the Rules provide for the cut-off date for the promotion panel, it is always advisable to have the same as crucial date for the inter-se seniority list also. For instance, if the calender year concept is followed, the assistants who were either directly recruited or promoted as on first January of every year will be placed in the inter-se seniority list. On the other hand, if the panel year concept is followed, the assistants who are either directly recruited or promoted as on 15th March will be placed in the inter-se seniority list. Therefore, necessarily to draw a line, necessity to fix either of the concept arises. In the absence of any specific rule, there is nothing wrong in fixing the cut-off date as 15th March for the preparation of the inter-se seniority list also. For preparation of inter-se seniority list, Annexure IX does not provide for any cut-off date. (iv). It is not correct to contend that if the panel year is adopted, it will completely oust the promotee assistants. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration do not suffer from any infirmity for the reason that the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer is a mixture of following of both the concepts, namely calendar year concept and panel year concept. Therefore, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration has rightly remitted the matter back to the District Revenue Officer. Since the Commissioner of Revenue Administration has remitted the matter back to the District Revenue Officer, before whom the appellants have the right to raise objections, the proceedings of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration cannot be said to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. For determination as to whether the panel year should be adopted or calender year should be adopted for fixing inter-se seniority, it is better to refer G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993, where guidelines for preparation of panel for appointment by way of promotion/by recruitment by transfer was issued by the Government. For determination as to whether the panel year should be adopted or calender year should be adopted for fixing inter-se seniority, it is better to refer G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993, where guidelines for preparation of panel for appointment by way of promotion/by recruitment by transfer was issued by the Government. From the said order, it is to be seen that the direct recruitment is carried out by way of considering the estimate of vacancies arising in the panel year and therefore, consequently the promotion should also be carried out by way of calculating the estimate of vacancies arising in a panel year with reference to the crucial date, ie., 15th March of every year. (v). The Writ Court has rightly negatived the claim of the promotee Assistants by observing that the expression 'year' has not been defined in the present statutory context. Admittedly, the directly recruited assistants were appointed much prior to the promotion of the appellants/promotee Assistants. Therefore, the claim of the appellants is totally unjustified. 9. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before us. We have also given our careful consideration to the order of the Writ Court. 10. The dispute between the parties viz., the appellants (promotee Assistants) and the contesting respondents (direct recruit assistants) is in respect of preparation of inter-se seniority list among themselves. More specifically, the dispute is with regard to the date on which such list is to be prepared. While the promotee Assistants claim that such list is to be prepared going by the calender year, the direct recruits as well as official respondents claim that it should be as per the panel year. In other words, according to the promotee Assistants, the inter-se seniority list should be prepared as on first January of every year. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that such inter-se seniority list should be prepared on the crucial date for preparing the panel for promotion to the post of assistants i.e., 15th March. The Writ Court, rejected the claim of the promotee Assistants and consequently dismissed their writ petitions. Therefore, the issue arises for consideration in these appeals is as to which is the relevant date for preparing the inter-se seniority list between the appellants and the contesting respondents. 11. The Writ Court, rejected the claim of the promotee Assistants and consequently dismissed their writ petitions. Therefore, the issue arises for consideration in these appeals is as to which is the relevant date for preparing the inter-se seniority list between the appellants and the contesting respondents. 11. Both the appellants and the contesting respondents are functioning as assistants in the Revenue Department of the State of Tamil Nadu. The post of Assistant in the Revenue Department is filled by way of promotion as well as by direct recruitment. The feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant comprises of Junior Assistants, Steno Typists, Typists and Village Administrative Officers. 12. Rule 37 of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules deals with promotion or transfer as assistants or Junior Assistants. Rule 13-A of the said Rules contemplates preparation of annual list of approved candidates. Under the said Rule, it is stated that the crucial date on which the candidates should possess the prescribed qualifications for the purpose of inclusion in the annual list of approved candidates for appointment to the post by promotion, recruitment and by transfer, shall be 15th March of every year. It should be noted at this juncture that the above said Rules 37 and 13-A of the said Rules deal with the posts of Assistants only and therefore, it is evident that the crucial date referred to under Rule 13-A viz., 15th March of every year is for preparing the panel for promotion to the post of Assistants. Rule 38(b)(ii) deals with appointment, training and conditions of service of directly recruited assistants. It is stated therein that notwithstanding anything contained in the forgoing Rules, the Rule in Annexure IX shall govern the direct recruit Assistants in Revenue Department. 13. Careful perusal of Annexure IX, more particularly, Clause 9 therein would show that inter-se seniority of the directly recruited assistants in the District shall be fixed in the cyclical order referred to therein, irrespective of their date of joining duty. 14. The cyclical order referred to therein further indicates as to how the direct recruits and promotees should be placed in the seniority list according to the ratio referred to therein. In respect of this cyclic order position, there is no dispute between the parties. 14. The cyclical order referred to therein further indicates as to how the direct recruits and promotees should be placed in the seniority list according to the ratio referred to therein. In respect of this cyclic order position, there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, it is evident that the cyclical order referred to under Rule 9 of Annexure IX will have to be followed for fixing the seniority position of the assistants, while preparing inter-se seniority list between the promotees and directly recruited assistants. Therefore, it is apparent that, not that all the directly recruited assistants will find a place in the inter-se seniority list above than the promotees, even though their appointments were made earlier to the promotees, and on the other hand, their seniority position will have to be fixed only as per the cyclical order referred to under Clause 9 of Annexure IX. There is no dispute to the above Rule position and for following the cyclical order. The dispute in this case is as to when such inter-se seniority list has to be prepared between the promotees and direct recruits. 15. Before we answer the above question, it is better to understand the object and scope of preparing inter-se seniority list among the promotee assistants and direct recruit assistants. 16. It is to be noted at this juncture that next avenue of promotion to these assistants is to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. Admittedly, promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar is not governed by the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and on the other hand, it is governed by the Tamil Nadu Special Rules for Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. Under the above said Rules, the Rule 7 (a) deals with the qualifications for appointment to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, which reads as follows:- “No person shall be eligible to have his name included in the list of approved candidates for appointment as Deputy Tahsildar unless he possess the qualifications specified in Annexure III on the 15th September of the year to which the list relates.” 17. Therefore, it is evident from the above said Rule 7 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Special Rules for Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, that crucial date for preparing the panel to the post of Deputy Tahsildar is 15th September of the year to which the list relates. Therefore, it is evident from the above said Rule 7 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Special Rules for Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, that crucial date for preparing the panel to the post of Deputy Tahsildar is 15th September of the year to which the list relates. Thus, it is to be noted at this juncture, as rightly pointed out by the appellants, that Rule 13-A of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, which deals with promotion to the post of assistants, cannot be taken as a relevant rule for preparing the seniority list among the assistants, who are appointed either by way of promotion or by direct recruitment. The date 15th March referred to under 13-A of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules is referable to the crucial date for preparing panel for promotion to the post of assistants from the feeder category posts. Once the appointment is made to the post of assistants, either by way of promotion or by direct recruitment, application of Rule 13-A thereafter, cannot have any relevance for preparing the inter-se seniority list among the assistants of both categories, since the crucial date for preparing such inter-se seniority list is with an object and purpose. Needless to state that a seniority list is prepared only to prepare a consequential panel for promotion to the next higher post among the persons found in the seniority list, provided they satisfy the qualification criteria in all respects. It is not that all the persons who found their name in the seniority list are entitled for placement in the panel for promotion to the next higher post. On the other hand, though a seniority list is prepared, the consequential preparation of the panel for promotion to the next higher post, among the persons found in such seniority list, depends upon the candidates satisfying the qualification and eligibility criteria for promotion. Therefore, it is apparent that preparing a seniority list is undoubtedly is the first step before preparing a panel for promotion. 18. Keeping the above position in mind, we need to find out as to when exactly the inter-se seniority list among the assistants of both categories should be prepared. Therefore, it is apparent that preparing a seniority list is undoubtedly is the first step before preparing a panel for promotion. 18. Keeping the above position in mind, we need to find out as to when exactly the inter-se seniority list among the assistants of both categories should be prepared. We have already pointed out that the next avenue of promotion from the post of Assistant is Deputy Tahsildar, for which the crucial date for preparing the panel is 15th September of the year to which the panel list relates. When such being the position, it is not correct on the part of the appellants to claim that inter-se seniority list has to be prepared as per calender year viz., as on first January of every year. When the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar fixes the crucial date as 15th September of the year, certainly a seniority list should be prepared among the assistants of both categories within a reasonable time just prior to the preparation of such panel. In our considered view it should neither first January, as claimed by the appellants, nor 15th March, as claimed by the respondents. On the other hand, the date of preparing the seniority list must have reasonable nexus to achieve the object of preparting such list. 19. It is not in dispute that the relevant Rules nowhere indicate as to what would be date of preparing the seniority list. The Rule is totally silent on that aspect, though for preparing panel for promotion crucial dates are given for each and every promotional post. In this case, as already stated supra, 15th September is the crucial date for preparing the panel to the post of Deputy Tahsildars. 20. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the inter-se seniority list between the two categories of assistants can be prepared reasonably three months in advance before the crucial date for preparing the panel, so as to enable the affected party, if any, to agitate against such seniority list, before the appellate authority to get the list set right. On the other hand, if the seniority list is also prepared on the same crucial date for preparing panel for promotion to the next higher post, it would certainly affect the interest of persons, who may have some grievance against the preparation of such seniority list. On the other hand, if the seniority list is also prepared on the same crucial date for preparing panel for promotion to the next higher post, it would certainly affect the interest of persons, who may have some grievance against the preparation of such seniority list. At the same time, it is to be noted that such seniority list cannot be prepared on first January of every year, as claimed by the appellants, since we have already found that it cannot be done going by the calendar year. 21. It is seen from the facts and circumstances of the present case that the seniority list is prepared at one stroke for so many years. We fail to understand as to why the authorities have not prepared the seniority list for every year then and there and why they accumulate such exercise for years together. It is to be noted at this juncture that preparation of year wise panel for promotion is mandatory and therefore, the authorities cannot shirk their responsibilities in preparing such panel every year. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA v. HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN reported in 2010 (4) SCC 290 , wherein, it is held as follows:- 35. The Court must keep in mind the Constitutional obligation of both the appellants/Central Government as also the State Government. Both the Central Government and the State Government are to act as model employers, which is consistent with their role in a Welfare State. 36. It is an accepted legal position that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. 38. It is, therefore, clear that legitimate expectations of the respondents of being considered for promotion has been defeated by the acts of the government and if not of the Central Government, certainly the unreasonable in-action on the part of the Government of State of U.P. stood in the way of the respondents' chances of promotion from being fairly considered when it is due for such consideration and delay has made them ineligible for such consideration. Now the question which is weighing on the conscience of this Court is how to fairly resolve this controversy. 42. Concurring with the aforesaid interpretative exercise, we hold that the statutory duty which is cast on the State Government and the Central Government to undertake the cadre review exercise every five years is ordinarily mandatory subject to exceptions which may be justified in the facts of a given case. Surely, lethargy, in-action, an absence of a sense of responsibility cannot fall within category of just exceptions. 46. In Syed Khalid Rizvi the Court was considering Regulation 5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 which also contained the word `ordinarily'. In that context the word `ordinarily' has been construed as: "9........since preparation of the select list is the foundation for promotion and its omission impinges upon the legitimate expectation of promotee officers for consideration of their claim for promotion as IPS officers, the preparation of the select list must be construed to be mandatory. The Committee should, therefore, meet every year and prepare the select list and be reviewed and revised from time to time as exigencies demand." The same logic applies in the case of cadre review exercise also.” 22. When a panel is to be prepared mandatorily year wise, the seniority list also should be prepared well in advance every year, so as to enable the affected parties to work out their remedy against such list in a manner known to law, before ever preparation of the panel for promotion to the next higher post. Certainly, the panel for promotion and seniority list cannot be prepared simultaneously, as the said simultaneous action would undoubtedly defeat the interest of the affected parties to challenge the same in order to get their name included in the panel, if they succeeds before the appropriate authorities in respect of their grievance regarding their placement position in the seniority list. Therefore, a reasonable time gap must be provided between the preparation of seniority list and panel for promotion. At the same time, such time gap should not be either too long or too short from the crucial date of panel for promotion. Thus the time gap between these two lists should be reasonable, meaningful and purposeful. Therefore, a reasonable time gap must be provided between the preparation of seniority list and panel for promotion. At the same time, such time gap should not be either too long or too short from the crucial date of panel for promotion. Thus the time gap between these two lists should be reasonable, meaningful and purposeful. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the preparation of seniority list though has to be done keeping in mind of the panel list for promotion to the next promotional post, the same cannot be done by taking calendar year as the criteria, as contended by the appellants/promotees, since it is too long a gap. Equally, we are of the view that such cut off date for preparation of seniority list cannot be 15th March as contended by the respondents, since such date has no relevance to the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, since it is governed by separate and special rules as stated supra, more specifically under Rule 7(a) of the Tamil Nadu Special Rules for Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. Therefore, in view of the discussions made above and in view of the admitted position that there is no Rule dealing with the actual date of preparing the seniority list, we are of the view that the first respondent Government should make necessary amendments in the relevant Rules indicating the date of preparing the seniority list for each post, in order to avoid any confusion in future as to when such list has to be prepared. We have already expressed our view that such list can be prepared reasonably three months in advance before preparing the panel for promotion to the next higher post. Admittedly, the relevant Rules do not have a specific date as cut off date for preparing the seniority list. Therefore, the Rules need to be amended accordingly to give clarity as to what is the relevant cut off date. Since the Rule making power is vested only with the 1st respondent Government, we direct the first respondent to consider the above aspects and make necessary amendments to the relevant Rules, so that, unnecessary litigations can be avoided in future. 23. Since the Rule making power is vested only with the 1st respondent Government, we direct the first respondent to consider the above aspects and make necessary amendments to the relevant Rules, so that, unnecessary litigations can be avoided in future. 23. In this case, the Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the concerned District Revenue Officer and remitted the matter back to such authority to re-draw the inter-se seniority list, as per panel year. The original authority has prepared the list as per calendar year in some cases and as per panel year in other cases. The appellate authority set aside the said list and remitted back to the original authority to prepare the list as per panel year. We have already expressed our view that the seniority list should not go either by calendar year or by fixing 15 March as the crucial date. On the other hand, we are of the considered view, such list need to be prepared reasonably giving a gap of three months between the date of preparation of such list and date of preparation of panel. The first respondent Government shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the basis of the orders to be passed by the first respondent Government, the authority concerned shall prepare the seniority list afresh accordingly within a period of four weeks thereafter. We also direct that the seniority list as well as the panel for promotion to the next higher post shall be prepared every year without accumulating the same for years together. 24. Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.17169 of 2018 is filed for the following relief:- “To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent herein dated 19/05/2015 in ref.Proc.No.21359/2015/PA2; dated 05/06/2015 in Proc.No22571/2015/ PA2; dated 27/05/2015 Proc.No.22580/2015/PA2; 27/05/2015 in Proc.No.22590/2015/ PA2 and dated 24/04/2017 Proc.No.18554/2017/PA2 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to draw inter se seniority list in respect of directly recruited assistants and the promotee assistants in conformity with the Annexure IX clause 9 notified under Rule 38 (b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minsiterial Service Rules.” 25. The petitioners herein are also promotee assistants at the Madurai Revenue District and commonly aggrieved against the seniority list prepared by the fourth respondent on the reason that he has not followed ratio laid down in clause 9 of Annexure IX of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. It is their grievance that the fourth respondent has placed all the direct recruit assistants above the promotee assistants by taking into consideration of their year of appointment and has drawn up the year wise panel of the candidates as per their date of joining duty as direct recruits. 26. Thus, it is seen that the crux of the contentions raised in the above writ petition is similar to the contentions raised by the appellants in the above writ appeals. 27. In the result, the Writ Appeal (MD)Nos.836, 892, 974 and 1683 of 2018 and W.P(MD)No.17169 of 2018 are disposed of as follows:- (a) the orders impugned in the writ petitions are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent Government to make necessary amendments to the relevant rules indicating the date of preparing the seniority list by taking note of the observations and findings rendered supra. (b) the preparation of seniority list in this case should not go either by calendar year or by fixing 15th March as the crucial date. (c) such seniority list is to be prepared by giving a reasonable gap between the date of preparation of such list and date of preparation of panel for promotion. (d) the inter se seniority of the direct recruit assistants shall be fixed by strictly following the cyclical order referred to under Clause 9 of Annexure IX of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. (e) the first respondent Government thus shall pass appropriate orders making amendment to the rules as directed supra within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (f) on the basis of the orders to be passed by the first respondent Government amending the rules, the authority concerned shall prepare the subject matter seniority list afresh accordingly within a period of four weeks thereafter. (g) the seniority list as well as panel for promotion to the next higher post shall be prepared for every year without accumulating the same for years together. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.