JUDGMENT : K. Kumaresh Babu. J. (Prayer: Writ Appeals have been filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order dated 10.11.2020 made in W.P.No.9373 of 2013.) 1. This Intra-Court Appeal had been preferred by the State as being aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order of the first respondent dated 20.10.2012 and further directing the appellants to prepare a panel in terms of G.O.Ms.No.368, for arriving at the vacancies and promote such persons, who fall within the zone of consideration during the relevant point of time. 2. Heard Ms. M. Sneha, learned Special counsel appearing for Health and Family Welfare Department and Ms.N.R. Jasmine Padma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned Special counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the panel for the year 2000-01 was drawn with a crucial date for arriving at a panel on 15.02.2000. On the said date, the respondent herein was not qualified to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director, as he had acquired the requisite qualification to the said post only on 11.10.2000. She would submit that a panel was drawn by taking into account the retirement vacancy, promotional vacancy, the likely promotions and leave reserve vacancy during the panel year i.e., from 16.02.2000 to 15.02.2001. The respondent herein as being aggrieved against the drawl of panel in respect of three vacancies, had made a representation that the vacancies, which were likely to be made available due to the promotion of the serving Deputy Directors as Joint Directors of the Department should not be made. According to him, such number of vacancies ought not to have been included in the panel for the year 2000-01 as it goes against the guidelines issued by the Government under the G.O.Ms.No.368. She would submit that for the panel for the year 2000-01, a panel of serving Deputy Director fit for promotion to the post of Joint Director was also drawn and in that said panel, three Deputy Directors' names were included. Since the said panel was also drawn, the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Director had also included, the said three likely vacancies, which were subject to the final orders of promotion. The said aspect has also been explained in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the Writ Petition. Since the said panel was also drawn, the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Director had also included, the said three likely vacancies, which were subject to the final orders of promotion. The said aspect has also been explained in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants in the Writ Petition. but however without considering the same, the learned Single Judge had erred in holding that there was no materials placed before him to convince that the G.O.Ms.No.368 had been scrupulously followed and on that ground, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order in rejecting of the claim of the respondent and had inter alia issued the direction to redraw the panel in terms of G.O.Ms.No.368. 4. She would further submit that the promotions were made on the basis of the panel that was drawn for the year 2000-01. However, after a period of almost 10 years, the respondent had made a representation seeking to redraw the panel by contending that certain of his juniors were promoted before him. She would submit that it cannot be disputed by the respondent that he had acquired the requisite qualification viz., five years of experience in the feeder category with a diploma in Public Health course on the crucial date. The respondent had acquired the said diploma qualification only in the month of October 2000 and therefore, his name could not be considered to be included in the panel. However, certain of his juniors who had the requisite qualification had been included. This aspect had been completely over looked by the learned Single Judge in passing the order impugned before us in the appeal and hence, she would seek interference of this Court. 5. Countering her arguments, Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the G.O.Ms.No.368, envisPage ages ingredients for mode of preparation of estimates for preparation of a panel to be drawn for promotion. She would submit that as per the said Government Order, the vacancies which are likely to arise should not be considered in a particular panel year and the same could only be reckoned for the next panel year. She would submit that as per the said Government Order, the vacancies which are likely to arise should not be considered in a particular panel year and the same could only be reckoned for the next panel year. She would further submit that the claim of the appellants as regards to the likely vacancies, which arose due to the likely promotion of the three Deputy Directors cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the panel as regards to the promotion to the post of Joint Director was approved by the Government vide G.O.D.No.261, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 26.02.2001, and they were granted posting orders under G.O.D.No.389, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 20.03.2001. She would submit that this itself would show that the said promotion of the Deputy Directors happened after the panel for the year 2000-01 had expired on 15.02.2001. Therefore, the inclusion of the three vacancies under the caption for “likely vacancies” while drawing the panel for the year 2000-01 itself was erroneous. Had that not been filled then the actual vacancies would have arisen in the panel year 2001-02 and the respondent being the senior most person would have been automatically promoted. However, for the panel for the year 2001-02, it was shown as 'Nil' vacancy and that there was no promotion which had affected the right of the respondent to hold the post of Deputy Director at an earlier point of time. Therefore, she would submit that there was no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and she would seek no interference of this Court. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The lis that is to be decided in this Intra Court Appeal is as to whether the appellants were right in including three vacancies under the head of 'likely promotions' during the panel for the year 16.02.2000 to 15.02.2001 for the vacancies of the year 2000-01. 8. In that aspect, it could be seen that a panel for promotions to the posts of Deputy Director and Joint Director had been prepared by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine viz., the second appellant herein on 10.11.2000 and 29.11.2000. 9. 8. In that aspect, it could be seen that a panel for promotions to the posts of Deputy Director and Joint Director had been prepared by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine viz., the second appellant herein on 10.11.2000 and 29.11.2000. 9. Admittedly, three Deputy Directors name have been included in the panel “fit for promotion” as Joint Directors for the panel year 2000-01. When such a panel is drawn, it is axiomatic that under exceptional circumstances, the person included in the panel would be denied promotion. Having drawn the panel, it is also axiomatic that vacancies would arise in the post of Deputy Director due to the promotion of Deputy Directors as Joint Directors. It is not the case of the respondent that he was qualified to be promoted as Deputy Director on the crucial date (i.e., 15.02.2000) for drawing of panel of persons fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Directors. This aspect had been clearly over looked by the learned Single Judge. 10. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in drawing of panel of Health Officers fit for promotion as Deputy Directors for the panel year 2000-01, which warrant interference by this Court. In view of the aforesaid reasonings and findings, we are of the view that the order impugned before us is not sustainable. 11. In fine, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and as a sequel, the said Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.