JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent issued in letter Roc.No.33041/2012/C1-1, dated 23.07.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with his Juniors in the category of Selection Grade with effect from 09.11.2009 and to revise the pensionary benefits from 30.06.2010.) The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion on par with his juniors on the fixation of pay is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1971 in the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service and promoted as Assistant in the year 1986. Subsequently, he was promoted as Superintendent in the year 1996 and Manager during the year 2004. The petitioner was appointed by transfer of service as Municipal Commissioner Grade II in the year 2007 and the next avenue for promotion was to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-I, which was given to the writ petitioner on 19.03.2008. However, the further promotion to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner was not granted to the writ petitioner which was granted to his Juniors A.Arumugam and K.V.Balakrishnan on 09.11.2009. Thus, the petitioner claims that he is also entitled to get notional promotion on par with his Juniors A.Arumugam and K.V.Balakrishnan with effect from 09.11.2009 with all attendant benefits. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the seniority list drawn by the respondents and accordingly the petitioner was placed above the said A.Arumugam and K.V.Balakrishnan and therefore, the petitioner is senior to other two Juniors. The two Juniors were elevated to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade I on 09.11.2009 and the petitioner was not considered for the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner and thus the petitioner was improperly denied promotion to the higher post. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to consider his case for grant of notional promotion with all attendant benefits. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to consider his case for grant of notional promotion with all attendant benefits. Earlier, writ petitioner filed W.P.No.17992 of 2013 with a prayer for direction to consider the petitioner-s representation dated 30.07.2012 and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the respondents issued impugned order in proceedings dated 23.07.2014 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. Thus, again the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is of the opinion that once the juniors were promoted to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner with effect from 09.11.2009 and during the relevant point of time, the petitioner was in service and working as Municipal Commissioner Grade-I, the said benefit is to be extended to the writ petitioner also by notionally promoting him, since he has already reached the age of superannuation. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2010, and thus the petitioner requested the authorities to grant notional promotions and mandatory benefits. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that those juniors were promoted only on work arrangement basis and they were not gradually promoted to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner by drawing a panel and by following procedures as contemplated. When the authorities, considering the administrative exigencies in a particular post, allowed the juniors to work as Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner on work arrangement basis, the said work arrangement cannot provide any right to the seniors to claim promotion on par with the juniors. It was only an ad-hoc arrangement/promotion granted to the juniors of the petitioner and such ad-hoc arrangement would not confer any right on the petitioner and the regular promotion was granted to the eligible employees only after retirement of the writ petitioner and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered for promotion in accordance with the seniority. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents further contended that as per the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Municipal Commissioner-s Subordinate Service, one should complete two years period of probation in the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-II for promotion to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-I and also to complete another two years period of probation in the Municipal Commissioner Grade-I for promotion to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner. But, in the present case, petitioner had joined duty as Municipal Commissioner Grade-II on 22.02.2007. The petitioner is only qualified for promotion of Municipal Commissioner Grade-I on 15.03.2009 and for the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner, in the year 2011. Thus, the petitioner is qualified for promotion to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner on 15.03.2011 and he attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.06.2010 itself and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for regular promotion to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner. The regular promotion to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner was granted by the Department to the other eligible employees only after the retirement of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for any retrospective promotion based on the juniors who were accommodated in the promotional post on work arrangement basis. 7. Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the parties to the --lis--, this Court is of the considered opinion that any work arrangement or in-charge position or emergency accommodation in the interest of public, cannot be construed as regular promotion or appointment. Such work arrangements or in-charge position are made on certain administrative exigencies in order to provide service to the public at large. Only if regular promotions are granted by following the Rules, then only the question of seniority would arise, but not otherwise. In the event of promoting the juniors on regular basis, then the petitioner would get right to claim retrospective promotion on par with the juniors. However, certain temporary work arrangements or in-charge position conferred to some juniors on account of certain administrative exigencies, would not confer any right for promotion on par with the juniors. As those juniors were not regularly promoted by way of publication of panel and by following the procedures as contemplated, promotion per-se would not confer any right to the employees. However, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right, and whenever a decision is taken to fill up the post on regular basis by way of promotion, then the authorities competent are bound to consider the names of all eligible candidates who all are aspiring to secure promotion. However, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right, and whenever a decision is taken to fill up the post on regular basis by way of promotion, then the authorities competent are bound to consider the names of all eligible candidates who all are aspiring to secure promotion. This being the principle, the regular promotion was granted only after the regular panel for promotion to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner was prepared and it was only after the retirement of the writ petitioner and therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities to consider the name of the writ petitioner for inclusion of his name in the panel. That apart, the petitioner had not completed two years of service on the date of his retirement in the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-I. This criteria is fixed for promotion to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner. In any event, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and therefore, there was no opportunity for him to get promotion to the higher post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner and this being the factum, the very claim set out in the writ petition deserves no further consideration. If any other grievance exists, it is for the petitioner to approach the authorities. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.