JUDGMENT T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—I.A.I is allowed. The Plaintiff is the Appellant, who seeks admission of the second appeal against the dismissal of his suit by both the Courts. The prayer made in the plaint is: (a) declaring that the persons acting as the Turbo Operator on the basis of allegation made by the Management-Defendant and Company is illegal and unjust. The sum and substance of prayer number (a) is for declaring that the persons are illegal and unjust; such a prayer is untenable, does not give a meaning of, such a prayer cannot be granted by any Court. The prayer (b) is for declaring that the Plaintiff is the only eligible candidate for the post of 1st Grade Turbo Operator and to declare that the advertisement made by the Defendant-company dated 15.7.1975 calling the employees working in the Company for the post of Operator Turbo under the Grade of C.T. 2 is null and void. This prayer consists of two parts, the first part is the Plaintiff, the only eligible candidate. The Court is not expected to conduct interview and come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is the only eligible candidate. 2. Promotion is not a matter of right and it is for the authorities to decide on the merits of each candidate and this Court cannot be converted into a Selecting Committee and to declare that the Plaintiff is the only eligible candidate, these factors have to be taken into consideration by the authorities, their qualification, their experience, their capacity, their previous record, their conduct etc. Therefore this Court cannot look into for declaration that the Plaintiff is the only eligible candidate, the 2nd part of the prayer is that the company is not entitled to advertise for the post of Turbo Operator to the Grade of C.T. 2, every employer is entitled to call for advertisement and notwithstanding the fact that candidates are available for filling the post. It is the inner satisfaction of the employer by calling advertisement and it is not necessary that, if he chooses a particular candidate to be given the post. Therefore these two prayers do not conform into civil rights. Only declaration of a civil right is contemplated within the meaning of the Specific Reliefs Act, in my opinion these two prayers do not constitute a civil right, that can be conferred upon the Plaintiff. 3. Therefore these two prayers do not conform into civil rights. Only declaration of a civil right is contemplated within the meaning of the Specific Reliefs Act, in my opinion these two prayers do not constitute a civil right, that can be conferred upon the Plaintiff. 3. The Court below, no doubt has taken Issue No. 4 and has held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, though on a different point of view, but I am satisfied, apart from the view expressed by the Court below, there is no civil right that can be declared in favour of the Plaintiff and the suit must fail on this ground as well. 4. Any promotion or service conditions are governed by the standing orders, but the learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to produce the standing orders before this Court to appreciate the above stand. If at all there is any grievance, the Appellant can make out such standing orders. 5. Reliance was placed on the dictum of M.B. Joshi and Others Vs. Satish Kumar Pandey and Others, AIR 1993 SC 267 , which is a case of promotion and that case arose out of an Administrative Tribunal which has been constituted to consider the service conditions of a Government employee. Therefore that decision, prima facie does not apply to the facts of this case, even otherwise it is seen the finding is as follows: It is settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any specific rule, the seniority amongst persons holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of the length of service and not on any other fortuitous circumstance. 6. Prima facie it is not shown before me that there was any rule at all. Further, the contention was that he wants to derive benefit from the agreement between the Union and the Management, according to the Appellant, as Union is not willing to take out the cause, it wants to treat it as an individual dispute. 7. It is seen that, if the Union has taken up the cause stated to have arisen from the purview of the Industrial dispute, simply because the Union is registered and for those reasons, jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the Civil Court. 8. The learned Judge also relied upon the dictum of Vazhapadi Textiles (Private) Limited Vs. 7. It is seen that, if the Union has taken up the cause stated to have arisen from the purview of the Industrial dispute, simply because the Union is registered and for those reasons, jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the Civil Court. 8. The learned Judge also relied upon the dictum of Vazhapadi Textiles (Private) Limited Vs. Durai and 5 Ors, 1998 (2) CLT 255, but the decision was in a case of suit for declaration under Section 9 and the prayer in the suit was for the declaration that the document dated 10.10.1991 purported to have been executed by the Plaintiff is illegal and void and not binding on the Plaintiff and for other consequential reliefs. It was construed as a common law remedy before the Company Law Board and in that case, it was found that there was no provision in the Company Act to seek such a relief before the Company Law Board. Therefore, the Single Judge of a Madras High Court has chosen to hold that there is a relief under the common law, because the document was admitting mismanagement of the Company, he does not come near the facts of the present case, therefore I am of the view that their case has no application to the facts of this case. 9. I find no substantial question of law to entertain the second appeal. The same is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.