NAYUDU, C. I.:- In this Civil Rule the petitioner questions the validity of a seniority list of permanent and temporary telegraphists of Assam Circle, prepared by the Post Master General, Shillong, indicated in Annexure B to the petition. (2) The main contention of the petitioner is that in an earlier list date 20-11-57, his name occurs as the first name, this list being An­nexure 'A , whereas in Annexure 'B' his name occurs as the 44th and therefore the last name in the list. His contention is that although his confirmation was on 28-4-54 and therefore he is entitled to reckon his seniority from that date, a number of persons who had been confirmed later had been put over him in the seniority list, and this affected his future chances of absorp­tion and promotion. It is pointed out in the affidavit in opposition that 10 persons have been placed above the petitioner But it has to be noticed that all these 10 persons were in service prior to the date the petitioner was entertained in service. The list of dates given in Column 2 at page 4 of the affidavit in opposition, shows that these dates range from 1-1-46 to 25-9-53, all of which are before the date on which the petitioner was entertained in service and with effect to which the petitioner had been confirmed, namely 28-4-54 (3) The contention of the petitioner further is that there is an element of discrimination in the matter of giving preference to those already in service and particularly as evidenced by what has been stated in Paragraph 5 of the affidavit in opposition giving preference to those persons who had been drawing a monthly rate of pay higher than Rs 60/ prior to the date on which the petitioner had been entertained. This apparent­ly is based on a circular issued by the Director of Post and Telegraphs in Annexures 'C' and 'D' to the affidavit in opposition In Annexure 'C', departmental candidates appointed as telegra­phists are treated as a separate class by them­selves and they are regarded as a class which ranks senior to candidates recruited from outside during the year In another paragraph it is also pointed out that non-departmental telegraphist absorbed as regular telegraphists in any particular year will take seniority below both the de­partmental candidates and outsiders as referred to earlier in the circular. We do not see how the classification made in the circular, the cate­gorisation and the seniority given according to that classification, could be impugned as involv­ing a discrimination either under Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution The departmental candidates that is the candidates who had already been in service in the department, had been treated as a class by themselves and inter so those candidates there is no discrimination. Similarly the candidates who are recruited from outside during the period will rank over the non departmental candidates and inter se there is no discrimination. Again, coming to Annexure 'D' which also dealt with the question of seniority in the matter of telegraphists, we find that it laid down that seniority of telegraphists holding substantive appointments in that cadre from a date earlier than 1st January 1944 are to be shown according to the date of their substantive entry in the grade. Similary, the seniority of officials who did not hold a substantive post in the cadre earlier than 1st January 1944 and were selected for appointment as telegraphists before 19th Septem­ber 1957 is determined on the basis of service in the grade as well as service in an equivalent grade in accordance with the circular issued on 5th December, 1949 Again seniority inter se of outside candidates who were recruited on the basis of a competitive examination or marks in the Matriculation or its equivalent examination was declared to be determined with reference to merit in the examination or position in the ap­proved list as the case may be. So far as those candidates were concerned, we find that this circular treats each class oi appointees separately and provides for a uniform seniority in respect of each class. It cannot be questioned that when the class differs, and the method of recruitment differs and when also the qualifications differ, the seniority has necessarily got to be fixed t^' i into account all these factors This ques­ts 4 had been dealt with by their Lordships of tilt Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Calcutta v. Amal Kumar Roy, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1704 , wherein their Lordships clearly pointed out: 'Lastly, it was submitted that the plaintiff has been discriminated against in the matter of his promotion, and, therefore, Article 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution have been violated. It is difficult to see how either of those Articles can be pressed in aid of the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff's case was considered along with that of the others, and the High Court, after a con­sideration of the relative fitness of the Munsiffs chose to place a number of them on the panel for appointment as Subordinate Judges, as and when vacancies occurred. He had, therefore, along with others, equal opportunity. But equal op­portunity does not mean getting the particular post for which a number of persons may have been considered. So long as the plaintiff, along with others under consideration, had been given his chance, it cannot be said that he had not equal opportunity along with others, who may have been selected in preference to him. Where the number of posts to be filled is less than the number of persons under consideration for those posts, it would be a case of many being called and few being chosen the fact that the High Court made its choice in a particular way can­not be said to amount to discrimination against the plaintiff (4) In fact, the present case is a much stronger one than the case before the Supreme Court. because in the instant case there is no question of any promotion involved but merely an arrangement of seniority of the telegraphists in the cadre, based on relevant considerations We feel, therefore, that there is ample justification Jin the method followed by the department in arranging the order of seniority based on prior service and prior pay merit being equal Such an arrangement cannot be questioned as amounting to any discrimination violative of Arts 14 and 16 of the Constitution (5) Reliance has been placed by Mr Choudhury on the decisions reported in Madhav Laxrnan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1962 SC 8 ; Gene­ral Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36; and Kishori Mohanlal v. Union of India. AIR 1962 SC 1139 . The first case bus no application as it dealt with the case of a Mamlatdar, who lost his seniority by reversion which satisfied the test of punishment, nor I he case reported in AIR 1962 SC 36, which dealt with the claims of backward classes protected under Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution. AIR 1962 SC 1139 . The first case bus no application as it dealt with the case of a Mamlatdar, who lost his seniority by reversion which satisfied the test of punishment, nor I he case reported in AIR 1962 SC 36, which dealt with the claims of backward classes protected under Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution. The case reported in AIR 1962 SC 1139 was a case deal­ing with the rules relating to promotions in the Income-tax Department and it was therein held that there was no denial of equality of oppor­tunity as among the citizens holding posts of same grade, and as such has no application to the facts of the instant case (6) The petitioner's complaint seems to be that by reason of a shuffling of the list of telegra­phists, permanent and temporary, his chances of promotion would be affected. As clearly pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision quoted above, namely, AIR 1962 SC 1704 . the question of promotion depends on many factors besides selection based on merit. Such being the case, the petitioner could have no cause for complaint even if he is not promoted. But, in the instant case, he seems to base his claim only on a mere appre­hension that his chances of selection may be affected. These are uncertain factors which can­not be accepted as forming the foundation for the issue of a writ under Art. 226 of the Consti­tution. (7) It is not contended before us that Art. 311 of the Constitution applies in this case, for obyious reasons. There is no question of reduction in rank where a person's seniority in the same list of candidates is rearranged and his position is fixed with reference to the relevant factors affecting such fixation. We do not, therefore, feel that this is a case for exercising our special and extraordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. (8) We, accordingly, dismiss this petition, but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.