JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner is challenging the promotion of the respondent No. 5 given to him in 1987 as Foreman Supervisor. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 was junior in service, as well as junior as a Senior Mechanic grade which is the feeder cadre for the post of Foremen Supervisor. It is the fact that as far as service seniority is concerned, the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 5 as he joined the service as a Jeep Driver on 20th November, 1956 and he was promoted as Senior Mechanic on 13th April, 1981, while the respondent No. 5 joined the service as Mechanical Engine Driver on 2nd June, 1958 and was promoted as Senior Mechanic on 30th October, 1984. 2. The respondent No. 1 has filed its affidavit and has justified the promotion of the respondent No. 5 on the basis of the fact that the respondent No. 5 was possessing better qualifications than the petitioner and therefore he was promoted as Foreman Supervisor. It is also pointed out in the affidavit that the respondent No. 5 had approached the Grievance Committee and the Grievance Committee has also considered the grievance of the petitioner and compared the case of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5. In para 12 of the affidavit it is clearly stated that the Grievance Committee had considered twice the grievance of the petitioner and found that the respondent No. 5 was rightly promoted as he was having better educational qualification and experience in mechanical trade. 3. The respondent has also filed his affidavit. In para 19 he has reproduced the rules in respect of promotion to the post of Foreman Supervisor. According to the said rules, Diploma in the concerned trade, two years experience of Foreman Supervisor is prescribed . In the said paragraph he has set out his own qualifications such as (i) he is possessing Government Industrial School three years certificate course examination in carpentry from Government Agricultural High School, Parbhani, (ii) he has passed the Adib examination from the Aligrah University in November, 1964 which is equivalent to H.S.C. In addition to the aforesaid educational qualification he has also averred that he is also having heavy vehicle driver's licence and further he has stated that he acquired Diploma Course in Automobile from the Modern Technology Institute, Hyderabad in November, 1974. He has also acquired Diploma course in Air condition and plant operation from the Institute of Modern Technology, Hyderabad. He has also stated that he has undergone the training in operation as Yennar Power Tiller at Indo-Japanees Demonstration from Khopoli for the period from 25th April, 1966 to 30th April, 1966. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent No. 5 possesses not only the educational qualification but also has experience which is required for the departmental promotion. 4. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we do not find anything illegal or wrong in the order of promotion of respondent No. 5. The petitioner is only possessing a driving licence while the respondent No. 5 is far better qualified. We do not find any substance in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----