ORDER: The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to issue a writ of declaration declaring Regulation 21(a) of the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board General Service Regulation 1978 as null and void and consequently quash the impugned order of the second respondent passed in reference No.MMWSSB/PLA/ STE/04977/92, dated 21.8.1992 and direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II above Esther Malliga, the third respondent herein. 2. The petitioner would bring out her case in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stating that she joined the first respondent Board as Lab Technician Grade II, on 20.8.1982 from when onwards, her service was regularised; that she completed her probation on 19.8.1984; that the service condition of the employee in the Board is regulated by the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board General Service Regulation 1978; that the first respondent is a creature of statute under Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’); that in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ‘C’ of Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.81 of the Act, the service regulations were framed. 3. The petitioner would further submit that as per Regulation 5(2)(a), whenever vacancies arise, the Board shall call for eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange and by advertisement in news papers for appointment from time to time; that she got appointed through Employment Exchange; that her date of appointment in the Board in respect of Lab Technicians Grade II and for the first time by virtue of the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, the seniority list was published fixing the petitioner as ‘9’ below respondents 3 to 6 referring Regulation 21(a): that on 2.9.1992, she made her representation to the second respondent to refix her seniority as ‘5’ in the place of Esther Malliga, the third respondent herein which was rejected by the second respondent’s proceedings dated 11.9.1992: that she is the seniormost employee in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II and would furnish the relevant particulars which runs as follows: Sl. No. Name Date of appointment Date of regularisation Date of declaration 1. S.Zakira Begum 20.8.1982 20.8.1982 19.8.1984 2. Esther Malliga 24.8.1982 24.8.1982 6.12.1984 3. T.Meera Bai 23.2.1982 23.8.1982 22.12.1984 4. P.Saraswathi 23.8.1982 23.8.1982 26.12.1984 5. S.Lakshmi 23.8.1982 23.8.1982 22.8.1984 4. No. Name Date of appointment Date of regularisation Date of declaration 1. S.Zakira Begum 20.8.1982 20.8.1982 19.8.1984 2. Esther Malliga 24.8.1982 24.8.1982 6.12.1984 3. T.Meera Bai 23.2.1982 23.8.1982 22.12.1984 4. P.Saraswathi 23.8.1982 23.8.1982 26.12.1984 5. S.Lakshmi 23.8.1982 23.8.1982 22.8.1984 4. The further averments of the affidavit are that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in The Direct Recruit Class -II- Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1607, the seniority should be counted from the date of actual appointment in service, provided the appointment is made according to the Rules: that her appointment is as per Rules and that she is senior to respondents 3 to 6, but as per the impugned order, her seniority is fixed below the 6th respondent; that though the Regulations are in force since 22.7.1978, Regulation 21(a) is not given effect to as such for all the cadre, the seniority has been fixed with reference to the date of actual appointment; that only for the first time, without notices to the affected persons. Seniority in the cadre of Lab Technician has been fixed with reference to Regulation 21(a); that the fixation of the seniority published in the impugned proceedings is illegal and hence, the writ petition with prayer extracted supra. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, besides generally denying the allegations contained in the writ petition, these respondents would also specifically allege that the Board has framed Service Regulations in respect of the staff members in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.81(2)(C) of the Act; that the seniority of the candidates appointed by direct recruitment has to be fixed under Regulation 21(a), according to which, the seniority with respect to category or grade shall be determined by the rank obtained in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Board, subject to the Rule of Reservation where it applies; that therefore, the seniority of the petitioner has been fixed in accordance with the said Regulation in the second respondent’s proceedings No.MMWSSB /P&A/ STF/R&A5/04977/92, dated 21.8.1992 which is as follows: 1. V.Janabai 2. P.Arokianathan 3. K.Madhanagopal 4. T.Chandrababu 5. S.Esther Malliga 6. T.Meerabai 7. P.Saraswathi 8. S.Lakshmi 9. Zakira Begum 10. S.Shanthi 11. M.Mohanraj 12. Harrington Lydia Uma 13. V.Janabai 2. P.Arokianathan 3. K.Madhanagopal 4. T.Chandrababu 5. S.Esther Malliga 6. T.Meerabai 7. P.Saraswathi 8. S.Lakshmi 9. Zakira Begum 10. S.Shanthi 11. M.Mohanraj 12. Harrington Lydia Uma 13. A.Chitra that the seniority published in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II is in order and in accordance with the Regulations, and hence, the writ petition. 6. The further averments of the counter are that the representation of the petitioner dated 2.9.1992 was examined and informed that her seniority has been fixed according to Regulation 21(a) and hence, her request to fix the seniority based on the date of first appointment could not be complied with; that on the basis of the seniority published, approved panel for the post of Lab Technician Grade-I for the year 1992-93 has been prepared by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 11.9.1992: that there is no illegally as contending by the petitioner: that Regulation 21(a) states as follows: “The seniority of a person in the Board’s Service with respect to a category or grade shall be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Board subject to the rule of reservation where it applies; the date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins the Board’s Service irrespective of his seniority.” that as per the rule of Reservation, the appointment at the time of selection of the petitioner, and the rank of the petitioner against 8 vacancies was as follows: Sl. No. Name Community 1. S. Esther Malliga OC 2. J. Udayakumar BC 3. N.S. Kala BC 4. T. Meerabai BC 5. P. Saraswathi BC 6. S. Lakshmi BC 7. Zakira Begum OC 8. P. Jayasimhan SC Besides, the following four other candidates were kept in the wait list: Sl. No. Name Community 1. S. Shanthi BC 2. L. Malliga OC 3. M. Kanchanamala BC 4. J. Udayakumar BC 3. N.S. Kala BC 4. T. Meerabai BC 5. P. Saraswathi BC 6. S. Lakshmi BC 7. Zakira Begum OC 8. P. Jayasimhan SC Besides, the following four other candidates were kept in the wait list: Sl. No. Name Community 1. S. Shanthi BC 2. L. Malliga OC 3. M. Kanchanamala BC 4. T.L. Doraibabu BC that out of the 8 candidates selected, Sl.No.3, N.S.Kala did not join duty, and hence, Sl.No.1 from the wait list, viz., N.Shanthi was appointed subsequently; that based on the rank obtained by them, the seniority of approved candidates has been drawn by the Board subject to the rule of reservation and there is no deviation at all; that it is false to allege on the part of the petitioner that the seniority in respect of other services was fixed with reference to actual date of appointment in service; that there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and the same becomes liable to be dismissed. 7. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, besides tracing the facts of the case as projected by the petitioner in the writ petition, would also try to impress upon the Court that as per Regulation 21(a), they challenge the seniority of respondents 3 to 6 that the petitioner should be placed above these respondents; that the relevant provisions of law, in this context is Regulation 21(a); that according to respondents 1 and 2, there is no violation and it has been perfectly done in accordance with Regulation 21(a) and hence the petitioner has prayed for the declaration of Regulation 21(a) of the Act as null and void and consequently quash the same. 8. The learned counsel would further point out that the respondents say that on the merit of marks, they have allotted the seniority. But, they have omitted to say that they have followed the roster system analysing the OC, BC, SC, etc.; that they have not said anything about the roster system at all. 8. The learned counsel would further point out that the respondents say that on the merit of marks, they have allotted the seniority. But, they have omitted to say that they have followed the roster system analysing the OC, BC, SC, etc.; that they have not said anything about the roster system at all. The learned counsel, at this Juncture, would point out that it is Regulation 21(a) that fixes the seniority list and would cite a judgment delivered in Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999)7 S.C.C. 209 , wherein the question of seniority in quota rotation rule whether the reserved category promotees vis-a-vis general category promotees, the reserved candidates at Level 1 who got promoted to Level 2 at the roster point meant for such promotion, whether can claim seniority at Level 3 on the basis of continuous officiation was considered and held that it is clear, from the relevant provision of the statutory rules that the seniority rule relating to “continuous officiation” in promotion is part of the general scheme of recruitment-by direct recruitment, promotion, etc.-in each of the services in classes I, II and III — and is based upon a principle of equal opportunity for promotion. It is only to such promotions that the seniority rule of continuous officiation is attracted. 9. In short, the learned counsel would clarify that the case law is that there cannot be two benefits and that, according to the Regulation, if merit comes for the appointment, the seniority will be pushed back. But seniority is to be counted on the basis of the actual service in the cadre; that only to set aside the seniority, the consequential prayer is included in the writ petition, apart from the main prayer to declare Regulation 21(a) as void. The learned counsel would further bring forth that against the impugned order dated 21.8.1992, a representation was made on 2.9.1992 to the second respondent seeking redressal and the said representation got rejected by an order dated 8.9.1992. 10. The learned counsel would further bring forth that against the impugned order dated 21.8.1992, a representation was made on 2.9.1992 to the second respondent seeking redressal and the said representation got rejected by an order dated 8.9.1992. 10. On the contrary, on the part of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it would be argued that the petitioner’s rank, according to her seniority and total marks obtained having been duly considered in the examination held and that the list was prepared in which, she was placed No.7; that No.1, Esther Malliga is the third respondent, No.4 T.Meera Bai is the fourth respondent, No.5 T.Saraswathi is the fifth respondent and No.6 S.Lakshmi is the sixth respondent herein. Regarding the marks obtained in the departmental examination held, the learned counsel would point out that the third respondent has obtained a total mark of 22 1/2. the fourth respondent has obtained 21 1/2. the fifth respondent has obtained 21 1/2 and the sixth respondent has obtained 21 marks; that the petitioner has also got 21 marks on the other relevant factors into consideration, the petitioner has been placed as No.7 in the list of seniority; that according to Regulation 21(a), in the list of candidates who appeared for the examination, this is the position in the order of merit; that the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 got appointed on one and the same day that was on 20.8.1992, and their probation were also declared on 19.8.1984; that so far as their positions were concerned, they were sailing together. But the sixth respondent did not joint the service along with them as she was on different assignment working in the training centre. 11. The learned counsel would further submit that all other four including the petitioner were working as Lab Technician Grade II; that after 15 years, they got promoted as Lab Technician Grade I with the same seniority being maintained including the petitioner, with effect from 15.11.1999; that she accepted the promotion without raising any objection and the learned counsel would supply with the original order passed by the Board made in proclamation Proc.No.CMWSSB/P&A/ STF/RA1/22115/99, dated 15.11.1999 wherein, in a serial of six persons shown therein, the name of the petitioner is figuring No.2. It is further found that consequent to the above promotion, the individuals and Sl.Nos.1 to 6 are posted as Lab Technician Grade-I in the present place of work besides giving the other particulars, viz., pay, increment and taking over of charge, etc. Regarding the charge that was levelled on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner during his argument that though respondents 1 and 2 would attribute the overlooking of seniority of the petitioner to the merit of marks obtained in the examination, still they have omitted to say anything regarding the roster analysis that is to be adopted. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents, in his reply, would point out that so far as the list dated 21.8.1992 that is the impugned order which is challenged here is concerned, it is only an approved list and not a seniority list; that from the Grades found in the approved list, the seniority list would automatically follow which is fixed purely in accordance with Regulation 21(a) and further giving effect to the roster system, etc; that after the fixation of the seniority list, if the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, only then she could challenge such a fixation of the seniority. So far as the preparation of the approved list dated 21.8.1992 which is under challenge is concerned, it is quite in order and nothing has gone wrong there, so also with Regulation 21(a). With such arguments, the learned counsel would pray for dismissing the writ petition. 13. The writ petition has twin prayers, viz., one to declare Regulation 21(a) of the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board General Service Regulation 1978 as null and void and the other to quash the impugned order of the second respondent passed in reference No.MMWSSB/PLA/ STE/04977/92, dated 21.8.1992 and direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II above Esther Malliga, the third respondent herein. 14. So far as regulation 21(a) which has already been extracted in para.6 supra is concerned, a plain reading of the Regulation would connote that the seniority of the person in the Board’s Service, shall be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Board subject to the rule of reservation where it applies. Two aspects which are made clear so far as this Regulation is concerned are that the seniority shall be determined by the rank obtained by the person in the Board’s Service, in the list of approved candidates and that is also subject to the rule of reservation where it applies. 15. In short, it has been made clear that the seniority in the Board’s Service would be based on the rank obtained by the particular person in the list of approved candidates which is drawn up by the Board and according to the arguments put forth on the part of respondents 1 and 2, it is based on the marks obtained in the examination, and in fact, the marks obtained by different candidates including the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 have also been revealed by the Board’s Council wherein, no infirmity or inconsistency or illegality seem to have been committed, nor is it contested on the part of the petitioner. 16. On the other hand, it would mean that the seniority of a person in the Board’s Service with respect to the categories of such nature as in the case of the petitioner and respondent 3 to 6, shall be based on merit and not on seniority. Needless to point out that the Apex Court has tellingly declared more than once that it is merit that counts and not the seniority, in fixation of seniority in the service and in cases where in all other aspects candidates are evenly placed, then the seniority would be given weightage in the fixation of seniority. Therefore, it could very easily be pointed out that not only Regulation 21(a) goes well in tune with the propositions held by the Apex Court so as not to be declared as null and void, as it is sought for on the part of the petitioner, but also on facts, it is proved that the Board has prepared the seniority list that is impugned herein, in accordance with the principles embodies in Regulation 21(a) of the Board’s Regulations and not in deviation of the same in any manner. Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity that exists nor does any valid reason that prevail to declare the said Regulation 21(a) as null and void. Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity that exists nor does any valid reason that prevail to declare the said Regulation 21(a) as null and void. Since no valid or acceptable reason prevails to quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated 21.8.1992 the approved list as prepared in accordance with Regulation 21(a) need not be disturbed at all. 17. It is further clarified that Regulation 21(a) itself embodies that the approved list is only subject to the rule of reservation where it applies, question of not adopting the roster system does not arise at this stage. The question that is raised on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the roster analysis has not been adopted also goes, which has been well clarified on the part of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that they would be taken care of giving effect to the rule at the time of preparing the seniority list and since the impugned order is only an approved list, all other legal formalities would follow at the time of preparation of the seniority list. 18. Moreover, the promotion effected in accordance with the seniority list to the post of Lab Technician Grade I from the post of Lab Technician Grade II as mentioned in the order dated 15.11.1999 of the second respondent Board since being accepted by the petitioner herself well after filing this writ petition, there is absolutely no grievance to be ventilated on her part so far as the reliefs sought for in the writ petition are concerned. 19. For all the above discussions held, it has to be concluded that the petitioner has absolutely no genuine grievance to be redressed whether concerning Regulation 21(a) or the approved list dated 21.8.1992 which is impugned herein, since everything is in order, and well settled. Therefore, it is neither necessary to declare Regulation 21(a) as null and void nor is it in any manner required to quash the second respondent’s impugned order dated 21.8.1992 made in MMWSSB/PLA/ STE/04877/92 nor is it necessary to issue any other direction as sought for by the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. 20. In result, the above writ petition, in all respects only fails and the same in dismissed. No costs. 21. Consequently, W.M.P.No.21855 of 1992 is also dismissed.