JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 027435/E1-1/2014 dated 12.12.2014 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Secretary to Regional Deputy Director of Government Examinations within a reasonable time.) 1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for inclusion of his name for promotion to the Post of Secretary to Regional Deputy Director of Government Examinations in the panel of the year 2014-15 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner joined as a Junior Assistant on 07.08.1987 in the Department of Government Examinations. He was promoted as Assistant in the year 1998 and as Superintendent in the year 2009. The next avenue for promotion is to the post of Secretary to Deputy Director of Government Examination and the crucial date is 01.09.2013 for the panel of the year 2014-15. However, the name of the writ petitioner was not considered on the ground that the cheque period with reference to the punishment of stoppage of increment imposed on the petitioner in a departmental disciplinary proceedings. Further, it is contended that the punishment of censure earlier imposed also expired before the crucial date of the panel of the year 2014-15. 3. The counter filed by the 3rd respondent also reveals that the name of the writ petitioner was not recommended in the list of promotion for the year 2014-15. His junior Smt. Sailakshmi and others had been recommended for promotion to the post of Secretary to the Deputy Director of Government Examinations. The case of the writ petitioner was not considered, since he is facing the charges and the currency of punishment is within the cheque period of five years and thus, his name was not recommended. 4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and another Vs. V.Rani, reported in (2011) 4 MLJ 1 (FB), wherein, the Full Bench held that the cheque period is illegal and the relevant portion of the reference made by the Full Bench reads as under: “28....... 4. V.Rani, reported in (2011) 4 MLJ 1 (FB), wherein, the Full Bench held that the cheque period is illegal and the relevant portion of the reference made by the Full Bench reads as under: “28....... 4. The Government letter No.18824/S/2005-2, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 07.10.2005 with annexures 1 to 7 and the letter No.248 (P & AR) Department dated 20.10.1997 are not statutory rules framed under proviso Article 309 of the Constitution of India and cannot be read either with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 or under the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. 5. Consequently, the embargo put on the right of Government servant for being considered for promotion for a further period, after the period of minor punishment is over, in the name of 'check period' viz., one year in the case of censure and five years in the case other minor punishments is illegal and impermissible under the statutory rules.” 5. In view of the fact that the case of the writ petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of cheque period, the respondents are bound to reconsider the name of the writ petitioner in accordance with the rules. 6. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.027435/E1-1/2014 dated 12.12.2014 is quashed and the respondents are directed to reconsider the name of the writ petitioner for inclusion of his name for the panel of the year 2014-15 for promotion to the post of Secretary to Regional Deputy Director of Government Examinations and if the petitioner is fully qualified and in the event of no other disqualification, the case of the writ petitioner is to be considered for promotion on par with his immediate juniors. 7. With these directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.