Judgment :- This order shall govern all the three writ petitions as the question involved is common. 2. The writ petitioners before me are the diploma holders, whereas the respondents 2 to 17 are the degree holders. It is a classic and unending tussle between the diploma and degree holders. For understanding the controversy, the following facts will be necessary. 3. All the petitioners and the respondents are and were the employees of Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' for the sake of brevity). Their service conditions were being regulated by the Regulations. All the writ petitioners have joined the service somewhere in the early 1960's in the post of Supervisor. The next promotion to the post of Supervisor is Assistant Executive Engineer. Accordingly, all the writ petitioners were granted the promotions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and ultimately they all became Executive Engineers in the year 1991. These petitions came to be filed in the year 1995 for a writ of mandamus directing that they should be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer/Civil on the basis of single common seniority list as it prevailed prior to 28.12.1974. This prayer also has some factual background. 4. Some of the employees who were graduate engineers came to be promoted in 1973 by a proceedings dated 5.3.1973. This was done by the Board on the basis of a rule that there shall be a proportion of 3:1 for the promotions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer from the post of Supervisors. As against three graduate engineer, only one diploma engineer could be promoted as per the new rules. These promotions came to be challenged by W.P.No.2257 of 1973 and that writ petition was allowed by this Court. The court held that there was no scope in the regulations for applying any such proportion of 3:1 in between the graduate engineers and diploma holders. The court also held that there could be no promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the post of junior engineers and the feeder category post was only Supervisors. Be that as it may. A writ appeal against that order was also dismissed. Thus, those promotions came to be quashed. However, the promotions already granted were not being cancelled by the Board and therefore a contempt application came to be filed by the petitioners. Be that as it may. A writ appeal against that order was also dismissed. Thus, those promotions came to be quashed. However, the promotions already granted were not being cancelled by the Board and therefore a contempt application came to be filed by the petitioners. After the notice was ordered in the said contempt application, the Board tendered an unconditional apology and also reverted the said graduate engineers, who were allegedly juniors to the diploma holders, by cancelling their promotions. One thing must be noted at this point that the petitioners were not ordered to be promoted or no promotion was granted to them, not even the notional promotion. 5. Thereafter, the Board proceeded to amend the regulations and provided for the proportion of 3:1 in between the graduate engineers and the diploma engineers. This was challenged in W.P.No.341 of 1975, but that writ petition was dismissed on 4.8.1976. A writ appeal came to be filed against that vide Writ Appeal No.107 of 1977, but that was also dismissed on 10.12.1982. Therefore, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court by way of S.L.P.No.6564 of 1983 and some of the diploma holders also filed writ petition under Article 32 directly before the Supreme Court. All these were tagged together. However, ultimately the judgments of the high court in the writ appeal as well as that of the learned single judge in the writ petition were upheld by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, there came to be filed a review petition in Civil Appeal No.559 of 1991. In that, it was observed by the Supreme Court that as per the counter filed by the Board it was obvious that the rules were going to be having only prospective effect and would not be operated upon retrospectively. The review application was also dismissed in pursuance of that. The Supreme Court rejected the review application only on 30.11.1994. 6. Thereafter, the present writ petitions came to be filed, suggesting therein that since the amendments providing the proportionate promotions came to be effected only on 31.12.1974 and since they were only prospective, the petitioners were entitled to the promotion on the basis of the 1973 seniority list, wherein they were admittedly senior to the respondents and when there was no proportion of 3:1 available. The petitioners, therefore, prayed by three separate petitions that they should be treated to have been promoted with effect from 1973 and if that was done, they would become senior to the respondents in all the subsequent promotions i.e., in their first promotion as Assistant Executive Engineers as also in their further promotion to the post of Executive Engineers. On that basis, they claimed that they should be promoted as Superintending Engineers treating them as seniors to the respondents. Needless to mention that all the respondents were promoted on the basis of the amended regulations, which had provided for the proportion. Needless to also mention that the petitioners however had not been promoted after the Board had cancelled the earlier granted promotions to the degree holder engineers and came to be promoted only later on after the regulations had come into effect. 7. Learned Senior Counsel contended that since the amendments effected in the year 1974 were to operate only prospectively, it was in the fitness of the things that those persons who were senior in the year 1973, when there was no proportionate promotion available, were bound to be promoted and their promotions were bound to be deemed as having been made under the unamended rules and if that is so, then they would be obviously senior to the respondents and if they are held to be so senior, they would have the advantage of the seniority and also the consequential promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board however pointed out that firstly the petitioners had no right to say for the first time in the year 1995 that their seniority in the year 1973 should be resorted to, and it was clear that the petitioners had accepted their promotion, which was made on the basis of amended regulations and not on the basis of unamended regulations and it was obvious that all the respondents had been granted promotions prior to all the petitioners even from the stage of Assistant Executive Engineers and to the next stage of Executive Engineers. 9. 9. On these conflicting stands, it will have to be first considered as to whether the petitioners' contention that they should be treated as seniors on the basis of 1973 seniority list and therefore the promotions granted to them to the post of Assistant Engineers should also be treated to be the promotions on the basis of seniority, is correct or not. 10. Considering from all the angles, the petitions have no merits. It is an admitted position that the graduate engineers who were granted the promotions on the basis of the proportion in the year 1973 were reverted as those promotions were found to be incorrect by this Court. Those promotions were found to be incorrect because at that time there was no question of any proportions in between the graduate engineers and the diploma engineers. Once that position was finalised, even upto the stage of writ appeals, the Board took the exercise of reverting those persons who were promoted over and above the persons like the petitioners who suffered only because of the proportions. But, the fact must be noted that at that time the Board did not choose to grant the promotions to the persons like the petitioners in place of those who were reverted. The Board kept quiet and instead proceeded to amend the regulations and provided for the proportions. All the promotions which took place thereafter were therefore obviously on the basis of the amended regulations. If the petitioners had been promoted in place of those who were reverted in terms of the High Court order, then the petitioners' promotions would have been not only prior in time to the respondents' promotions, but also those promotions would have been deemed to have been made on the basis of their 1973 seniority i.e., pre-amendment seniority list. That did not happen and curiously enough, the petitioners also did not insist for their promotions at that time though the graduate engineers were reverted back on the basis of the judgment of the Court. This could have possibly been done, but was not done is a fact. Mr.Radhakrishnan is undoubtedly right in contending that the Board did not choose to fill up the promoted posts. It is undoubtedly correct that it is the right of the employer to fill up a post or not to fill up a post. This could have possibly been done, but was not done is a fact. Mr.Radhakrishnan is undoubtedly right in contending that the Board did not choose to fill up the promoted posts. It is undoubtedly correct that it is the right of the employer to fill up a post or not to fill up a post. At that time, the Board probably in pursuance of this right, did not fill up the post and instead waited for amending the regulations. Thereby, the impediment in the way of the graduate engineers and the impediment in the application of the proportion rule was removed by amending the regulations and the exercise of the further promotions was taken after the amendment. Therefore, it is obvious that all the promotions which took place after 1974 were in terms of the amended regulations and not in terms of the unamended regulations. It is also obvious that the amended regulations were thus executed or promotions were granted, treating those promotions to be in a comprehensive manner. There could be therefore no question of the petitioners' contending that their promotion should have been related back to the unamended regulations and as such, they should have been held seniors. Factually the petitioners are not seniors to the graduate engineer respondents and even by deeming fiction they cannot be so held to be senior for the simple reason that the Board had every right to fill up the promoted posts or not to fill up the posts. The Board did not choose to do it and therefore if the petitioners' contention has to be accepted, it will have to be held that the Board was bound to fill up all the posts which fell vacant on account of reversions and that is not possible in the service jurisprudence. The right of the employer to fill up or not to fill up has to be honoured. The Board exercised that right and did not fill up those posts till such time as they amended the regulations and filled up those posts only after the amendment. 11. This is apart from the fact that the petitioners cannot claim any further right merely on the basis of seniority. In fact all those posts and more particularly the post of Superintending Engineer are undoubtedly selection posts and therefore mere seniority, even if granted to the petitioners would be of no consequence to them. 11. This is apart from the fact that the petitioners cannot claim any further right merely on the basis of seniority. In fact all those posts and more particularly the post of Superintending Engineer are undoubtedly selection posts and therefore mere seniority, even if granted to the petitioners would be of no consequence to them. The Superintending Engineer's post could not be directed to be filled up only on the basis of seniority, that too on the basis of notional seniority, which was being claimed by the petitioners. Therefore, merely because the petitioners, even if they prove themselves to be senior to the respondents, cannot claim promotion as of right. In short, the petitions have no merits and same are dismissed, but without any orders as to the costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps are closed.