JUDGMENT : Anita Sumanth,  J. In W.P.Nos.11717 & 29774 of 2016, 26897 of 2014 and 2789 of 2015, the challenge is to G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel Reforms (S) Department, dated 24.02.2014 and an order of the 4 th respondent i.e. the Additional Director of Agricultural imposing a check period and deferring promotion on the basis of a censure of these petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners circulate a copy of order dated 14.09.2016 passed in W.A.No.983 of 2015 and connected petitions petitions, wherein also the challenge was to the same Government Order. Dealing with the similar challenge, at paragraph 12, the Bench holds as follows: ‘12.Therefore, it is clear that the impugned G.O. is with several ambiguities, based on which, the appellant herein and the writ petitioner are denied promotion, even after the expiry of currency of punishment on the ground of ‘check period’ or treating ‘Censure’ as an embargo for granting promotion. Hence, the impugned G.O., insofar as it suggests the ‘check period’ and treats the ‘Censure’ as an embargo for granting promotion, which was already condemned by a Full Bench of this court, cannot be maintained as a valid one. In view of the above, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.243 of 2015 is set aside and the impugned G.O. is quashed, in sofar as it suggests the ‘check period’ and treats the ‘Censure’ as an embargo for granting promotion. The appellant and the writ petitioner shall be considered for promotion with retrospective effect, from the date when they became otherwise, eligible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ appeal and the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.’ 3.Since G.O.No.22 of 2015 has been found to be rife with errors and ambiguities and was quashed in the aforesaid order, we apply the ratio of that order to the present matters as well. The G.O. is quashed qua imposition of a check period, and treating the punishment of ‘censure’ as an embargo for grant of promotion. W.P.Nos.11717 & 29774 of 2016, 26897 of 2014 and 2789 of 2015 are allowed in terms of this order. 4.As far as WP.No.10774 of 2015 is concerned, none appears for the petitioner. The G.O. is quashed qua imposition of a check period, and treating the punishment of ‘censure’ as an embargo for grant of promotion. W.P.Nos.11717 & 29774 of 2016, 26897 of 2014 and 2789 of 2015 are allowed in terms of this order. 4.As far as WP.No.10774 of 2015 is concerned, none appears for the petitioner. The challenge in this matter is to records of the third respondent i.e. Additional Director General of Police dated 12.01.2015, excluding the petitioner from the panel for promotion based on G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 24.02.2014. 5.The aforesaid Government Order has been quashed in W.P.Nos.11717 & 29774 of 2016, 26897 of 2014 and 2789 of 2015, the operative portion of which reads as follows: ‘12.Therefore, it is clear that the impugned G.O. is with several ambiguities, based on which, the appellant herein and the writ petitioner are denied promotion, even after the expiry of currency of punishment on the ground of ‘check period’ or treating ‘Censure’ as an embargo for granting promotion. Hence, the impugned G.O., insofar as it suggests the ‘check period’ and treats the ‘Censure’ as an embargo for granting promotion, which was already condemned by a Full Bench of this court, cannot be maintained as a valid one. In view of the above, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.243 of 2015 is set aside and the impugned G.O. is quashed, in sofar as it suggests the ‘check period’ and treats the ‘Censure’ as an embargo for granting promotion. The appellant and the writ petitioner shall be considered for promotion with retrospective effect, from the date when they became otherwise, eligible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ appeal and the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.’ 6.In light of the aforesaid and seeing as the G.O. has itself being quashed, the non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name based on check period and punishment of censure is found to be erroneous. The respondents are directed to re-constitute the panel, having regard to the observations made under order dated 14.09.2016 and the present order. The respondents are directed to re-constitute the panel, having regard to the observations made under order dated 14.09.2016 and the present order. 7.Needless to say, and as the petitioner would not have worked in either the promotional post or subsequent posts, the promotions shall be taken to be notional, and shall be relevant solely for the purpose of fixation of seniority. We make it clear that the present order shall not disturb the seniority of others in the panel. We also make it clear that the petitioner is not entitled to monetary benefits including arrears of pay. W.P.No.10774 of 2015 is ordered in terms of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.