ORDER : C.SARAVANAN, J. This Writ Petition was allowed in the Open Court on 05.02.2025. However, while correcting it in Chambers, it was realized that the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner which has been referred to in the succeeding paragraphs of this order are irrelevant and not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the order that was passed on 05.02.2025 was recalled and listed “for clarification” today i.e., on 20.02.2025 and therefore a different conclusion is arrived by dismissing this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the respondent, wherein, the request of the petitioner to be promoted as a “Probation Officer” for the panel year 2002- 2003 has been rejected. 3. Operative portion of the Impugned Order dated 15.10.2014 reads as under:- “6. The Government have examined the appeal petition of the individual in the light of the relevant rules and connected records. As per Sub rule (2) of rule 47 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, relinquishment of a right or privilege for temporary period shall be accepted if it is made for a period not less than 3 years subject to the condition that after the expiry of the said period, the claim of the right or privilege relinquished will be with reference to the state of affairs that exist on the date of expiry of period of relinquishment and without restoration of original seniority. According to the said rules, the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons has rightly fixed the seniority of Thiru H.Imthiaz Ahmed when he was again promoted as Assistant. The request for restoration of seniority in the post of Assistant to the original position prior to reversion/relinquishment was rejected by the Government as stated in the Government letter fifth read above. Regarding the contention of the appellant that he was senior to Thiru B.Manikandan and Thiru S.Ravichandran, Assistants on the crucial date for drawal of panel for the post of Probation Officer by recruitment by transfer for the year 2002-2003 i.e., on 15.07.2002, and he was fully eligible for inclusion in the said panel, it is stated that the crucial date is a cut-off date to decide who are the eligible candidates having the requisite qualifications for consideration for inclusion in the panel. But, while drawing the panel subsequent changes such as retirement, pending disciplinary proceedings/disciplinary proceedings initiated, punishments imposed relinquishment of right, subsequent revision in the seniority and other factors relating to the status of the individual have to be taken into account. Merely having his name in the seniority list and requisite qualification on the crucial date will not confer any right on an individual for claiming inclusion of his name in the panel and for promotion to the next higher category. In the instant case on the date of drawal of panel his seniority in the post of Assistant had already been revised (included in the seniority list published as on 1.1.2007 as Sl.No.120) and automatically he would become ineligible for consideration of his name as he is far junior to the individuals cited by him (out of zone of consideration) on the date of drawal of panel. Further his services in the post of Assistant were regularized only with effect from 01.06.2006. 7. In view of the above, the Government have decided to reject his request. Accordingly, the Government reject the appeal petition first read above, preferred by Thiru H.Imthiaz Ahmed, Assistant requesting to include his name in the regular panel of Assistants fit for appointment as Probation Officer by recruitment by transfer for the year 2002-2003 as devoid of merits.” 4. The case of the petitioner is that, the crucial date for the panel year 2002-2003 for promotion to the post of “Probation Officer” was 15.07.2002 . It is the further case of the petitioner that, as per the seniority list published on 28.01.2002 by the Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai, the petitioner was at Sl.No.75, whereas one Thiru B.Manikandan and Thiru S.Ravichandran were at Sl.No.82 and 94 respectively and have been promoted in the year 2011 on 30.12.2011 5. The petitioner had earlier joined the Prison Department as a “Typist” on 01.06.1990 and was later promoted as an “Assistant” on 02.08.1994 . Thereafter, the petitioner had himself requested for reversion to the post of “Typist” on account of his ill health by two separate representations dated 12.07.2002 and 28.06.2002 . Acceding to the request of the petitioner, the petitioner was reverted back as “Typist” from the post of “Assistant” on 13.08.2002 by the Prisons Department. The petitioner received the aforesaid communication on 18.09.2002 and thus, the petitioner started drawing salary as “Typist” with effect from 18.09.2002 6. Acceding to the request of the petitioner, the petitioner was reverted back as “Typist” from the post of “Assistant” on 13.08.2002 by the Prisons Department. The petitioner received the aforesaid communication on 18.09.2002 and thus, the petitioner started drawing salary as “Typist” with effect from 18.09.2002 6. The further case of the petitioner is that, on the crucial date i.e., on 15.07.2002 , the petitioner was senior to the above two named persons namely Thiru B.Manikandan and Thiru S.Ravichandran and that, he was reverted on 18.09.2002 , pursuant to the decision taken on 13.08.2002 , in response to the petitioner's request dated 12.07.2002 and 28.06.2002 Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner should have been promoted as “Probation Officer” for the panel year 2002-2003 which was belatedly acted upon on 30.12.2011 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that during interregnum, the petitioner was once again re-promoted as an “Assistant” on 03.11.2005 and his post as an “Assistant” was regularized on 01.06.2006 . It is further case of the petitioner that, all though the petitioner had been reverted back as a “Typist” with effect from 18.09.2002 , when the promotion was given to above two persons, the petitioner was also an “Assistant” as he had been promoted on 03.11.2005 temporarily and that the promotion was regularized on 01.06.2006 . It is submitted that the reversion of the petitioner to the post of “Typist” on 18.09.2002 was only temporary reversion due to his ill health as stated by the petitioner in his representations dated 12.07.2002 and 28.06.2002 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to a decision of this Court rendered on 15.02.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.19525 of 2019 in the case of M.Chandran Vs. The Director of School Education and Others , which decision was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.132 of 2021 on 09.02.2021. It is submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court was also followed later by another Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. V.Ramakrishnan in W.A.No.2986 of 2023 vide order dated 02.11.2023. 9. Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was not entitled to promoted as a “Probation Officer”, as the petitioner had been reverted back at his own request on the date mentioned above. V.Ramakrishnan in W.A.No.2986 of 2023 vide order dated 02.11.2023. 9. Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was not entitled to promoted as a “Probation Officer”, as the petitioner had been reverted back at his own request on the date mentioned above. It is submitted that, though the panel was drawn belatedly on 30.12.2011 , the delay was on account of administrative reasons and since the petitioner had not reached the zone of consideration on that date, the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted as he had been reverted back to the post of “Typist”. It is submitted that the petitioner himself voluntarily relinquished to the right to continue as an “Assistant” and hence, he was reverted as a “Typist” for the period of three years vide Memo No.33480/ES1/02 dated 13.08.2002 by the Office of the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons and that the petitioner was working as “Typist” from 17.09.2002 and his pay was re-fixed from 18.09.2002 in the post of “Typist”. 10. It is further submitted that the crucial date for drawal of panel for the post of “Probation Officer” for the panel year, 2002-2003 is 15.07.2002 . Though the name of the petitioner was placed above the names of Thiru B.Manikandan and Thiru S.Ravichandran, the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons in his Proceedings No.29320/CS4/2008, dated 30.12.2011 included the names of Thiru B.Manikandan and Thiru S.Ravichandran for appointment to the post of “Probation Officer” in the Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Service by recruitment by transfer for the panel year, 2002-2003, since on the date of issue of the order, the seniority of the petitioner was revised and his name was placed far below the names of Thiru B.Manikandan and Thiru S.Ravichandran. Hence, inclusion of the name of Thiru B.Manikandan and Thiru S.Ravichandran in the said panel is not in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as contended by the petitioner. 11. Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent further submits that the seniority of the petitioner, as on 15.07.2002 i.e., the crucial date for drawal of the above said panel has been altered on the date of issue of the panel i.e., on 30.12.2011 . 11. Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent further submits that the seniority of the petitioner, as on 15.07.2002 i.e., the crucial date for drawal of the above said panel has been altered on the date of issue of the panel i.e., on 30.12.2011 . The Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons therefore, included the names of Thiru B.Manikandan and Thiru S.Ravichandran, Assistants in the said panel after taking into consideration of the revision of seniority of the petitioner and the subsequent changes. Hence, there is no logic put forth by the petitioner and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 12. I have considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 13. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier also, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.11287 of 2012. This was at the stage when the petitioner's appeal was pending before the respondent against the promotion given to the aforesaid two persons namely Thiru B.Manikandan and Thiru S.Ravichandran, who were promoted as “Probation Officers” on 30.11.2011 , for the panel year 2002-2003 and over looking the petitioner. 14. By an order dated 23.04.2012 , this Court had directed the respondent herein to dispose the appeal in three months. Pursuant to the above direction, the Impugned Order dated 15.10.2014 has been passed by the respondent. The respondent has referred to Rule 47(2) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. As per the aforesaid Rules, “relinquishment of a right or privilege for a temporary period shall be accepted, if it is made for a period of not less than 3 years subject to the condition that after the expiry of the said period the claim of the right or privilege relinquished will be with reference to the state of affairs that exists on the date of expiry of the period of relinquishment and without restoration of original seniority.” 15. This Court in its order dated 15.02.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.19525 of 2018 in the case of M.Chandran Vs. The Director of School Education and another referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and others Vs. V.Degala Suryanarayan reported in ( (1999) 5 SCC 762 ) and that of the decision of this Court rendered in A.Kalaiselvan Vs. The Director of School Education and another referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and others Vs. V.Degala Suryanarayan reported in ( (1999) 5 SCC 762 ) and that of the decision of this Court rendered in A.Kalaiselvan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another , reported in 2016 Writ L.R. 679, held as under:- “8. On reading the said judgment as cited supra, this Court is of the view that as already decided, when there was no currency of punishment on the crucial date, the subsequent charge memo cannot be a bar for promotion. In view of the said legal proposition, as has been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bank of India and A.Kalaiselvan, cases referred to supra, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case also, the subsequent charge has been framed during the month of May 2018, whereas the crucial date for the panel for the year 2018 was 01.01.2018 and on that date, if the petitioner was otherwise eligible and qualified, there can be no impediment for considering his name for promotion. 9. Under such facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decisions cited supra, the following directions are issued in this writ petition: (i) The name of the petitioner shall be included in the panel based on the crucial date 01.01.2018, fit for promotion to the post of Head Master and the said panel shall be acted upon, where the name of the petitioner is found place, he can be considered for further promotion of Head Master, unmindful of the subsequently framed charges against the petitioner during May 2018. (ii) If the name of the petitioner is considered as directed and any promotion is given to him, that will be subject to the result of the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 10.05.2018.” 16. The said decision was also affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.132 of 2021 dated 09.02.2021. Same view has been taken by the another Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 02.11.2023 in W.A.No.2986 of 2023. Relevant portion of the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2986 of 2023 dated 02.11.2023, reads as under:- “6. Same view has been taken by the another Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 02.11.2023 in W.A.No.2986 of 2023. Relevant portion of the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2986 of 2023 dated 02.11.2023, reads as under:- “6. The reason stated by the learned Additional Advocate General for noninclusion of the respondent's name in the panel for promotion to the post of Senior Electrical Inspector for the year 2018-19 is that charges have been framed and the disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. But, it is the admitted position that charge memo was issued only on 13.06.2022 and the crucial date for promotion panel was 01.11.2018 and hence, there was no charge pending at the time of preparation of the panel for promotion. The law is well settled that the issuance of subsequent charges to a Government servant cannot be a bar for inclusion in the promotion panel, which was prepared earlier based on the crucial date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and others v. Degala Suryanarayana [ (1999) 5 SCC 762 ], has held as follows: “14.However, the matter as to promotion stands on a different footing and the judgments of the High Court have to be sustained. The sealed cover procedure is now a well-established concept in service jurisprudence. The procedure is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment,etc., but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him and hence the findings as to his entitlement to the service benefit of promotion, increment etc. are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over [see: Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 at p.2013]. As on 1-1-1986 the only proceedings pending against the respondent were the criminal proceedings which ended in acquttal of the respondent wiping out with retrospective effect the adverse consequences, if any, flowing from the pendency thereof. The departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated with the delivery of the charge-sheet on 3-12-1991. In the year 1986-87 when the respondent became due for promotion and when the Promotion Committee held its proceedings, there were no departmental enquiry proceedings pending against the respondent. The sealed cover procedure could not have been resorted to nor could the promotion in the year 1986-87 be withheld for the DE proceedings initiated at the fag end of the year 1991. The sealed cover procedure could not have been resorted to nor could the promotion in the year 1986-87 be withheld for the DE proceedings initiated at the fag end of the year 1991. The High Court was therefore right in directing the promotion to be given effect to to which the respondent was found entitled as on 1-1-1986. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of punishment made in the year 1995 cannot deprive the respondent of the benefit of the promotion earned on 1-1-1986.” 17. These cases dealt with subsequent disciplinary proceedings after the “crucial date” where the name of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.5036 of 2023 who was respondent in W.A.No.2986 of 2023 was in the panel for promotion to the post of Senior Electrical Inspector for the year 2018- 2019. A charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner in W.P.No.5036 of 2023 on 13.06.2022 18. Taking note of the “crucial date” for promotion for panel as 01.11.2018 , Court noted that there was no charge pending at the time of preparation of the panel for promotion. 19. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the decision of the Writ Court in W.P.No.5036 of 2023 dated 14.06.2023 and held as above and allowed the writ petition. 20. The post of “Probation Officer” is a post in the Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Service Rules. It is in Branch-III of Section 17 of Volume III of the Tamil Nadu Service Manual. 21. As per Rule 2 of Branch III in Part-II of Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Service Manual for the Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Service Rules, the appointment to the post of “Probation Officers” is either by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the posts of Assistant or Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service of the Jail Department. 22. Recruitment by transfer of holders of the post of Assistant or Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service of the Jail Department as a Probation Officer has to be based on an annual list of approved candidates prepared for appointment to the posts in the branch. 22. Recruitment by transfer of holders of the post of Assistant or Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service of the Jail Department as a Probation Officer has to be based on an annual list of approved candidates prepared for appointment to the posts in the branch. The “crucial date” for qualifying a person holding the post of an Assistant or Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service of the Jail Department for recruitment by transfer to the post of a “Probation Officer” is 15 th of July of every year. In other words, the Assistant or Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service of the Jail Department, his/her name should be there in the annual list of approved candidates for recruitment by transfer as of 15 th of July of every year. 23. Rule 2 of Branch-III which deals with appointment of “Probation Officers” reads as under:- “ 2 . Appointment .- Appointment to the posts shall be made as follows:- i. By direct recruitment; or ii. For special reasons by recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the posts of Assistant or Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service of the Jail Department. iii.Preparation of annual list of approved candidates for the purpose of drawing up the annual list of approved candidates for appointment to the posts in this branch by recruitment by transfer, the crucial date on which the candidate should be qualified shall be the 15 th July of every year. Provided that the substantive vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment and by recruitment by transfer in the ratio 2:1.” 24. Thus, what is relevant for recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the posts of “Assistant” or “Junior Assistant” in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service of the Jail Department is the annual list of “approved candidates” for the purpose of appointment to the post recruitment by transfer by drawing up a list on the crucial date which shall be the 15 th July of every year. 25. On 15.07.2002 , the petitioner was already qualified to be promoted as a “Probation Officer”. However, recruitment by transfer was made only on 30.12.2011 . Meanwhile, the petitioner had already requested for being reverted to the post of “Typist” on 12.07.2002 and thereafter sent a reminder on 28.06.2002 which was accepted on 13.08.2002 acted on 18.09.2002 26. 25. On 15.07.2002 , the petitioner was already qualified to be promoted as a “Probation Officer”. However, recruitment by transfer was made only on 30.12.2011 . Meanwhile, the petitioner had already requested for being reverted to the post of “Typist” on 12.07.2002 and thereafter sent a reminder on 28.06.2002 which was accepted on 13.08.2002 acted on 18.09.2002 26. As per Rule 47(2) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules , if there is a relinquishment of a right or privilege for a temporary period of not less than 3 years, the claim of right or privilege relinquished will be with reference to the State of Affairs that exist on the date of expiry of period of relinquishment and without restoration of original seniority. 27. On the other hand, if the relinquishment of right or privilege was made permanently and was accepted, the subsequent claim of right or privilege will not be entertained. 28. Rule 47(2) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules reads as under:- “ 47 . Relinquishment of rights by members .- (1)..... (2)Relinquishment of a right or privilege for a temporary period shall be accepted if it is made for a period of not less than three years subject to the condition that after the expiry of the said period, the claim of the right or privilege relinquished will be with reference to the state of affairs that exist on the date of expiry of period of relinquishment and without restoration of original seniority. If relinquishment of right or privilege is made permanently and is accepted, subsequent claim of the relinquished rights or privileges shall not be entertained.” 29. The acceptance of the request for reversion on 13.08.2002 to the post of “Typist” was pursuant to Letters dated 12.07.2002 and 28.08.2002 of the petitioner. It would have been pursuant to the power exercised under Rule 47(2) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. 30. The petitioner has not kept a copy of the Order dated 13.08.2002 reverting the petitioner back to the post of “Typist” from the post of “Assistant”. 31. The three year period would have expired on 18.09.2005 . The petitioner was however once again promoted as an “Assistant” on 03.11.2005 . The said promotion was later regularized on 01.06.2006. 32. 30. The petitioner has not kept a copy of the Order dated 13.08.2002 reverting the petitioner back to the post of “Typist” from the post of “Assistant”. 31. The three year period would have expired on 18.09.2005 . The petitioner was however once again promoted as an “Assistant” on 03.11.2005 . The said promotion was later regularized on 01.06.2006. 32. Therefore, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant as no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner. Though the crucial date for promotion was on 15.07.2002 , the petitioner was reverted back as a “Typist” on 13.08.2002 with effect from 18.09.2002 at his request. He was subsequently promoted as an “Assistant” once again on 03.11.2005 which was thereafter regularized on 01.06.2006 33. As per Rule 47(2) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules , the claim of right or privilege relinquished will be with reference to the State of Affairs that exist on the date of expiry of period of relinquishment and without restoration of original seniority. Thus, the seniority of the petitioner will be with reference to the State of Affairs that exist on the date of expiry of period of relinquishment and without restoration of original seniority. 34. Therefore, the non-inclusion of the petitioner for the panel year 2002-2003 as on 30.12.2011 cannot be faulted with. Therefore, the Impugned Order dated 15.10.2014 does not warrant an interference in the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 35. Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 15.10.2014 cannot be quashed. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.