B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is working as an assistant in Life Insurance Corporation of india, Prakasam District, has filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in not calling him for interview to the post of Higher Grade Assistant though he is qualified and calling the candidates for interview who neither passed the departmental promotion tests nor possessing technical qualifications as required under the Life Insurance corporation of India Class III and Class IV employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987 (for short the Rules ), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. ( 2 ) THE respondents seemed to have issued a notification on 30-10-1999 calling for applications, from the eligible employees of the Corporation for promotion to the post of Higher Grade assistant in the prescribed format on or before 15-11-1999. It is also made clear in the notification that the conditions of eligibility including service and qualifications would be reckoned as on 1-10-1999. From the Rules, it is seen that section Heads or Assistants with 35 years service and pass in departmental test or acquiring prescribed technical qualifications or Assistants with 10 years of service are eligible for appointment to the post of higher Grade Assistant. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that Law graduation with at least 50% in aggregate is prescribed as one of the technical qualifications which the petitioner possesses and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner is not expected to pass any departmental promotion test to get eligibility for consideration for appointment to the post of Higher Grade Assistant. ( 4 ) AS per the Rules, a single panel of all eligible candidates i. e. , those who pass the departmental tests and those who are exempted will be prepared on the basis of the total marks gained on 3 counts viz. , seniority, qualifications and work record. Instruction No. 10 of Instructions for implementation of Life Insurance corporation of India Class III and Class IV employees Promotion, Rules, 1987 (for short the Instructions ) deals with the marks to be awarded for seniority, qualification, work record, interview, etc. Under Instruction No. 6 (2) of the instructions, out of the candidates empanelled, candidates in the order of merit equal to 5 times the number of vacancies will be called for interview. Under Instruction No. 6 (2) of the instructions, out of the candidates empanelled, candidates in the order of merit equal to 5 times the number of vacancies will be called for interview. ( 5 ) IN the Nellore Division, there seems to be 14 vacancies of Higher Grade Assistants, out of which 12 vacancies are to be filled from general category and 2 vacancies from st category. For the vacancies to be filled from general category, 60 candidates out of the empanelled candidates in order of merit have to be called for interview. But from the list of candidates that were called for interview commencing from 14-2-2000, it is seen that 99 candidates were called for interview out of whom candidates at sl. Nos. 95 to 99 belong to ST category who have to be considered for the two vacancies earmarked for the ST category. In other words, to fill up 12 vacancies from the general category, respondents called as many as 95 candidates for interview i. e. , in the ratio of 1 : 8 in contravention with instruction No. 6 (2) which provides for the ratio of 1 : 5. The respondents tried to explain their conduct by stating that as the candidates from Sl. Nos. 61 to 95 secured equal number of marks as that of the candidate at Sl. No. 60, to extend equal treatment, all these persons were called for interview. I cannot accede to the contention of the respondents Counsel. When once a merit list is prepared on the basis of seniority, qualification and work record, the respondents are expected to call the candidates for interview only in the ratio of 1 : 5, but not in the ratio of 1 : 8. When more than one candidate secured equal number of marks, under general principle of law, the seniority will be fixed on the basis of age of the candidates. Following that Rule, they have to fix up the seniority among the candidates who secured equal number of marks on the basis of their age and they have to call the candidates for interview only in the ratio of 1 : 5 i. e. , only 60 candidates, but not 95 candidates as contemplated by them. To that extent, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. To that extent, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. ( 6 ) SRI J. V. Suryanarayana Rao, learned standing Counsel for the Corporation contended that the petitioner, having stood at Sl. No. 167, cannot seek a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case and call him for interview on the question of process of selection. I have seen the merit list prepared by the respondents-Corporation. Though many candidates secured equal number of marks as that of the petitioner with regard to seniority and qualification, the ranking has changed on the basis of the work record for the last 3 years. At any rate, the petitioner being an aggrieved party, more so when his juniors are called for interview it is always open to him to bring to the notice of the court the irregularities committed by the appointing authority in making selection, whether he may or may not come up to the selection though he is eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of higher Grade Assistant. Promotion being one of the incidents of service, the respondents-Corporation cannot mar the chances of the petitioner to get selected in future by selecting the candidates who are far juniors to him in the service on the basis of the marks obtained by them under the caption work record , more so when they have not fallen in the zone of consideration as per Instruction No. 6 (2 ). As far as this selection is concerned, on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner under the three counts, the petitioner s name finds place at Sl. No. 167, far beyond the zone of consideration. Hence, he cannot have any grievance for not calling him for the interview for the post of Higher Grade assistant at this point of time. ( 7 ) THE respondents are at liberty to go ahead with the process of selection by restricting the interviews to the first 60 candidates in the order of merit as required under Instruction 6 (2) of the Instructions. For fixing the seniority among the candidates who secured equal number of marks, as the respondents-Corporation have already awarded marks on the basis of their length of service, their seniority in the list has to be fixed on the basis of their date of birth. For fixing the seniority among the candidates who secured equal number of marks, as the respondents-Corporation have already awarded marks on the basis of their length of service, their seniority in the list has to be fixed on the basis of their date of birth. ( 8 ) WITH the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.