D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an employee with the respondent/m. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation. In thisp etition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India his grievance is that although he holds, on being duly regularised, the post of Grader, his name is not included in the seniority list of Graders, issued as on 16-3-1983 (Annexure P-16 ). The petiiioner's second grievance is that due to non-inclusion of his name in the seniority list of Graders, he has been denied chance of his promotion to ctj] M. L. Sahu v. M. P. State Co-op. Marketing Federation the post of Business Assistant and has been superseded by respondent Nos. 3 to 7, who are juniors to him. ( 2 ) WE have heard at length the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have also considered the written arguments submitted by him after the hearing was concluded. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the Federation took us through the relevant service records of the petitioner, which has been exhibited along with its return. Having cosidered the service record of the petitioner which is before us in the petition as also the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that this petition has no merit and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of some confusion created because of the insertion of word 'grader' in the order of regularization; a copy of which is produced in the petition as Annexure P-3 The petitioner is also trying to make in illegitimate claim only on the ground that perior to his regularization in the service of the Federation, he had undergone graders' training course. The facts as have been brought out from the return of the federation are that the petitioner entered into service of the Federation on 11-1-1977 (Annexure R-2) on the post of Grader/godown Keeper. May be, that he was allowed to take the grader training course which he successfully passed. The learned counsel for the Federation points out that in the order of regularisation (Annexure R-4) of the employees named therein including the petitioner at serial No. 22 all were regularized on the post of Junior assistant and not Grader. May be, that he was allowed to take the grader training course which he successfully passed. The learned counsel for the Federation points out that in the order of regularisation (Annexure R-4) of the employees named therein including the petitioner at serial No. 22 all were regularized on the post of Junior assistant and not Grader. It is pointed out that in the above order of regularization the word 'grader' for 'kanistha Sahayak' in the second sentence had been scored out and in the entry at serial No. 22 where the petitioner's name appear his present post 'grader' has been mentioned. According to the learned counsel for the Federation in the document annexure P-3 which is produced along with the petition, the scored out word 'grader' has been re-written to build up a case that the petitioner was regularized as 'grader'. The order of regularisation (Annexure P-3)according to us does not appear to be the correct copy of the order of regularization and the correct copy is Annexure R-2 of the same order filed by the respondent. ( 4 ) IT is clear to us from the entire service record of the petitioner that he was never regularized on the post of 'grader', but he was instead regularized on the post of Junior Assistant. This fact is duly doubly demonstrated from the fact that in the seniority list of Junior Assistant, showing position in October, 1979 (Annexure R-5) the petitioner is included at serial No. 211 along with all other employees who were regularized with him on the post of Junior Assistants, under order Annexure p-3, equivalent to Annexure R-4. ( 5 ) ON the basis of his position in the seniority list as Junior Assistant, the petitioner earned one promotion to the post of Senior Assistant by promotion order dated 20-6-91 (Annexure R-7) in which petitioner's name figures at S. No. 5. The petitioner thus has been duly included in the seniority list of Junior Assistant and has in fact in that junior rank earned promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. The petitioner has thus approached this Court with misrepresentation of facts that he was regularized as Grader and was entitled to be promoted to the post of Business Assistant. The petitioner thus has been duly included in the seniority list of Junior Assistant and has in fact in that junior rank earned promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. The petitioner has thus approached this Court with misrepresentation of facts that he was regularized as Grader and was entitled to be promoted to the post of Business Assistant. ( 6 ) AT the out set there was a preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Federation that this is a service dispute, which can be adjudicated upon under Section 55 (2) of the Madhya pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and that we should dismiss the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. Having, however, heard the counsel at some considerable length and since the petition is of the year 1987 in which the pleadings are complete, we thought it fit to hear the counsel for the parties on merits ( 7 ) HAVING gone through the service record of the petitioner, we find that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- if certified. Petition dismissed. .