JUDGMENT (Prayer: W.A.Nos.425, 426 and 493 of 2022: Writ Appeals have been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 10.01.2022 in W.P.No.4973 of 2021 and allow the Writ Appeal. W.A.Nos.427, 428 and 492 of 2022: Writ Appeals have been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent, to set aside the Judgment dated 10.01.2022 in W.P.No.4981 of 2021 and allow the Writ Appeal.) Common Judgment: D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. 1. Two Writ Petititons in W.P.Nos.4973 & 4981 of 2021 were allowed by a common judgment dated 10.01.2022 by the learned Single Judge, quahsing the proceedings dated 05.02.2021 and the consequential seniority list issued on 19.02.2021, whereunder the respondents 4 & 5 in the said Writ Petitions were placed as No. 1 and 2 in the panel for promotion as B.T.Assistant – Science and consequently directed the respondents to conduct promotion counselling for the vacancies arose in the year 2020, on the basis of the panel dated 17.03.2020 and to grant promotion to the petitioners as B.T.Assistant-Science, with all attendant benefits. 2. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the respondents No.4 & 5, whose promotions were set aside, filed the Writ Appeals in W.A. Nos.425 to 428 of 2022. The official respondents, namely, the Elementary Education Director, D.P.I. Campus, Chennai, the District Educational Officer, Villupuram District, the Block Educational Officer, Kolianur Block,Villupruam District, have filed the Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.492 and 493 of 2022. Since all these appeals are against the same common judgment of the learned Single Judge, canvassing the same submissions, are all taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the parties are referred to as per their array in the writ petitions. 4. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.4973 of 2021, namely, S.Rajavardhanan and W.P.No.4981 of 2021, namely, S.Sangeetha, were working as Secondary Grade Teachers. They acquired degree in Chemistry and Physics respectively and became qualified to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of B.T.Assistant -Science, in the year 2017. According to their turn, their names were included in the promotion panel, which was issued on 17.03.2020 and their names figured as in Serial No.1 and 2 respectively. There were two vanancies in the year 2020 and they ought to have been promoted. Due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, promotions were not effected. According to their turn, their names were included in the promotion panel, which was issued on 17.03.2020 and their names figured as in Serial No.1 and 2 respectively. There were two vanancies in the year 2020 and they ought to have been promoted. Due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, promotions were not effected. Subsequently, in the year 2021, the respondents again issued published a panel on 19.02.2021. In the said panel, the fourth respondent in the said Writ Petition viz., L.Sundararajan, was placed in Serial No.1 and the fifth respondent viz., R.Bhuvaneshwari, was placed in Serial No.2. The Writ Petitioners were relegated to Serial No.3 & 4, respectively. The reason being that, by then, the above mentioned L.Sundararajan, and R.Bhuvaneshwari, had acquired requisite qualifications. The Writ Petitioners made representations that they must be promoted first ahead of the above said respondents No.4 & 5, which did not invoke any positive response and therefore, the aforesaid Writ Petitions were filed. 5. A counter affidavit was filed by the official respondents 1 to 3, resisting the Writ Petitions by stating that as per Rule 8 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Subordinate Service, the annual list of approved candidates have to be drawn up for every year. As per Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services, the seniors, if any, who have subsequently technically qualified can be included and appropriately in the list, according to their seniority. Therefore, it was contended that the earlier panel though formed in the year 2020, since because of the extraordinary situation prevailing due to Covid 19 pandemic, no promotions were effected and therefore, as per the Rule 8, the fresh panel has to be drawn up with reference to the crucial date of 01.01.2021 and accordingly, the earlier panel got lapsed and promotions were to be effected only as per the fresh panel and therefore, there is no illegality. On behalf of the private respondents, it was also pleaded that they had obtained a qualification in the year 2019 itself. 6. After considering the submissions, by Judgment dated 10.01.2022, the learned Single Judge, found that the petitioners became eligible and qualified in the year 2020 itself. The respondents No.4 & 5, even though admittedly seniors to the Writ Petitioners, got qualified only in the year 2021. 6. After considering the submissions, by Judgment dated 10.01.2022, the learned Single Judge, found that the petitioners became eligible and qualified in the year 2020 itself. The respondents No.4 & 5, even though admittedly seniors to the Writ Petitioners, got qualified only in the year 2021. The learned Single Judge, found that even though there were extraordinary situation due to Covid -19 pandemic, the same cannot result in a disadvantageous position to the petitioners and therefore, the promotional exercise due in the year 2020, had to be conducted for the vacancies arose in the year 2020 and the respondents cannot resort to bunching of vacancies and they have to first fill up the vacancies arisen out of the year 2020 separately and thereafter, proceed to consider the panel of the year 2021. On the said findings, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions on the terms stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeals are laid before this Court. 7. Heard Mr.Ramanlal, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants/official respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petitions and Dr.R.Gouri, learned Counsel for the Appellants/respondents No.4 & 5, and Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents /petitioners in Writ Petitions. 8. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, he would submit that only because of the extraordinary Covid -19 pandemic situation, the promotion was not effected in the year 2020. Though, the writ petitioners have a right to be empanelled as per the rules, it is well within the right of the official respondents, either to effect the promotions or not. If or any reasons the promotions are not effected, the panel cannot be carried into the next year, and as per the rules, once again fresh panel has to be prepared. The rule clearly stipulats that if any senior who had subsequently acquired qualification, then the qualified person has to be included in the appropriate place of the seniority. Therefore, there was no infirmity whatsoever in the action of the official respondents. 9. The rule clearly stipulats that if any senior who had subsequently acquired qualification, then the qualified person has to be included in the appropriate place of the seniority. Therefore, there was no infirmity whatsoever in the action of the official respondents. 9. Dr.R.Gouri, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents in the writ petition, taking this Court through the papers filed on behalf of the respondents No.4 & 5, would not only reiterate the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, made on the basis of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Elementary Schools Subordinate Services Rules and Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinates Service Rules, would also take this Court through the certificates of the private respondents and would plead that the respondents No.4 & 5 in the Writ Petition, was awarded the degree, pursuant to the examination held in May 2019 and similarly the respondent No.5, in the Writ Petition was awarded the degree pursuant to the examination held in December 2019. As such, she would submit that it can be seen that respondents No.4 & 5 cannot be held to be unqualified, even for the year 2020 and would submit that only because of the same Covid-19 pandemic situation, even qualifications were not entered into immediately, and even panel was not communicated to them immediately in the year 2020. Therefore, she pleaded there is no illegality or infirmity of the official respondents No.1 to 3, in empanelling the respondents 4 & 5 at Serial No. 1 & 2 and granting promotions accordingly. 10. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that in this case, when the issue is between the two sets of teachers, without taking a neutral and proper stand the official respondents have unjustifiably filed these Writ Appeals. The learned Counsel would submit that it could be seen that even though respondents No.4 & 5 are seniors to the Writ Petitioners, yet they were not qualified as of the year 2020. When the rules require for formation of the annual panel, and when the respondents are not qualified for the vacancies which arose in the year 2020, they cannot be promoted in the said vacancies. When the rules require for formation of the annual panel, and when the respondents are not qualified for the vacancies which arose in the year 2020, they cannot be promoted in the said vacancies. Therefore, he would submit that the contention of lapsing of panel has no relevance in the instant case and even if the panel lapses in the year 2021, as directed by the learned Single Judge, the respondents have to consider the cases of the teachers with reference to the year wise vacancies and since respondents No.3 and 4, did not have the qualification and the said qualifications not having entered into their Service Register, they cannot be considered for the said two vacancies, which arose only in the year 2020 and no vacancies arose in the year 2021. Therefore, he would submit that the action of respondents No.1 to 3 in placing the respondents No.4 & 5 as in Serial Nos.1 & 2 in the panel for the year 2021, is erroneous in law. Therefore, he would submit that the Writ Appeals are without any merits and pray for the dismissal of the same. 11. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of this case. 12. At the outset, it is useful to extract Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, and the same is reads as hereunder:- "4. Approved candidates - (a) All first appointments to a service or class of category or grade thereof State or Subordinate, whether by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer or by promotion, shall be made by the appointing authority from a list of approved candidates. *All appointments made by transfer, from one class to another class and from one category to another category, in the same service carrying identical scale of pay shall be made by the appointing authority from a list of approved candidates. *All appointments made by transfer, from one class to another class and from one category to another category, in the same service carrying identical scale of pay shall be made by the appointing authority from a list of approved candidates. Such list shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by the appointing authority or any other authority empowered in the Special rules in that behalf ** and shall be displayed in the Notice Board in the Office of the appointing authority.** The list shall also be communicated to all persons concerned by Registered post whose names are found in the list as well as to persons senior to the Junior most person included in the list whose names have not been included in the list. Where the candidates in such list are arranged in their order of preference appointments to the service shall be made in such order: **(w.e.f. 25.7.2003 Vide G.O.Ms.No.130 P&AR(S) Dept. dt.29.4.2004 & G.O.Ms.No.99 P&AR(S) Dept. dt. 2.8.2005) *[G.O.Ms.No.284, P & AR (S), dt.1-12-97 came into force on 1-12-97]. Provided that the list of approved candidates for appointment by promotion and by recruitment by transfer to all the categories of posts in the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services shall be prepared annually against the estimated number of vacancies expected to arise during the course of a year. The estimate of vacancies shall be prepared taking into account the total number of permanent post in a category; the number of temporary posts in existence; the anticipated sanction of new posts in the next year; the recruitment post of leave reserves; the anticipated vacancies due to retirement and promotion, etc., in the course of the year and the number of candidates already in position in that category. The list of approved candidates, so prepared, shall be inforce for a period of one year only and shall lapse at the end of the year. The candidates whose names were included in the previous list, but were not appointed, shall be considered, if eligible for inclusion in the list of next year along with their seniors if any whose names were not included in the previous list either because they were found not suitable or because they were not technically qualified when the previous list was drawn up. ....... " [emphasis supplied] 13. ....... " [emphasis supplied] 13. It is also relevant to extract Rule 8 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Elementary Educationa Subordinate Service Rules, which reads as follows:- "8.Preparation of annual list of approved candidates:- For the purpose of drawing up of the annual list of approved candidates for appointment to that post in the service by promotion, the crucial date on which the candidates should be qualified shall be the 1st January of every year. " 14. Thus, it is clear from the reading of the above rules that the promotion has to be effected only from the approved list of candidates. Further, the list has to be drawn up with reference to the crucial date, which is the first January of every year, by estimating the vacancies that are due to arise during the year and while so doing, the candidates whose names were included in the previous list but, were not appointed shall be considered if eligible for inclusion in the list of next year, along with the seniors, if any whose names were not included in the previous list, either because they were not suitable or because they were not technically qualified in the previous list. Thus, if the respondents No.4 & 5, in the Writ Petitions, became qualified subsequently, they had to be included properly in the list, the appropriate seniority position. Seniors in the service, once they obtain necessary educational qualification/technical qualification, even on a later date will not become Juniors as it is only the date of entering into the services, which would be determining factors for fixing the seniority and position in the promotion panel and not on the date of acquiring of qualification. This legal position has been clearly laid down in the Judgment V.Dhanasekaran and Ors., Vs. M.Ganesan and Ors., (2007) 6 MLJ 533 ). Therefore, once respondents No.4 & 5 in the Writ Petitions, acquired the qualification, they have to be treated as seniors to the Writ Petitioners, in the matter of promotion. 15. We do not agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge, the extraordinary Covid 19 situation cannot result in non-conduct of the exercise of promotion, thereby, directing the first to carry out the exercise with reference to the year 2020. Even under normal circumstances, it is for the employer to grant the promotions depending on the exigency services. 15. We do not agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge, the extraordinary Covid 19 situation cannot result in non-conduct of the exercise of promotion, thereby, directing the first to carry out the exercise with reference to the year 2020. Even under normal circumstances, it is for the employer to grant the promotions depending on the exigency services. Especially, in Covid 19 situation and extraordinary circumstances the official respondents No.1 to 3, are very well justified the non-grant of promotion in the year 2020. 16. Now, the other contention which is raised in this case is that in respect of the vacancies that arose in the year 2020 as of the crucial date i.e., 01.01.2020, the respondents No.4 & 5 were not qualified. The said submission is again untenable. The degree certificates are produced before this Court in and by which, it is seen that the respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition was awarded the degree pursuant to the examination held in the year May 2019 and the respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition, had acquired the qualification, pursuant to the examination held in the year December 2019. It has been held by the this Court, in K. Pandiyan v. Director of Elementary Education(2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4371)that the qualification of the person is deemed to be have been acquired as on the date of the final examination and it is not on the date of entry into the service records or date of issue of degree certificate. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the above Judgment, it cannot also be contended that as on the crucial date i.e., 01.01.2020, the respondents No.3 and 4, did not have the requisite qualification. Thus, seen from any angle, the order of the learned Single Judge, is liable to be interfered with. Writ Appeal Nos.425 to 428 and 492 & 493 of 2022 17. In the result, all the Writ Appeals stand allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge, dated 10.01.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.4973 and 4981 of 2021 is set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.4973 & 4981 of 2021 stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.