Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. As both these Writ Appeals have been preferred against the very same judgment passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4475 of 1995, dated 17. 2002, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant in W.A.No.2502 of 2002, namely P.R.Bindulekha (fourth respondent in W.P.No.4475 of 1995), was working was Office Assistant in Sri Ayyappa College for Women, Ayyappa Nagar, Chunkankadai, Nagercoil-7, Kanyakumari District (the appellant in W.A.No.2604 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as the College) and was promoted as Record Clerk on 21st October, 1994 pursuant to the decision of the College Committee at its meeting held on 27th September, 1994. 3. The first respondent-M.V.Jayalakshmi (in both the Writ Appeals) who was also working as Office Assistant in the College, preferred Writ Petition No.4475 of 1995 and prayed for a direction to the College Management to cancel the promotion granted to the fourth respondent-P.R.Bindhulekha (the appellant in W.A.No.2502 of 2002) and for a further prayer to direct the Management of the College to promote her as Record Clerk with effect from 20.10.1994. 4. The learned single Judge, by order dated 17. 2002 passed in W.P.No.4475 of 1995, having allowed the prayer for promotion of the first respondent-Writ Petitioner (M.V.Jayalakshmi) as Record Clerk, to which post the appellant-fourth respondent in W.P. (P.R.Bindhulekha) was promoted, these two Writ Appeals have been preferred by the appellant-P.R.Bindhulekha and the Management of the College. 5. The only question involved in the present Writ Appeals is whether the first respondent-M.V.Jayalakshmi (Writ Petitioner) is senior to the appellant-P.R.Bindhulekha (fourth respondent in W.P). 6. The Management of the College in their counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, specifically pleaded and not disputed by the first respondent-Writ Petitioner (M.V.Jayalakhmi) that there were three vacancies in the post of Office Assistant in the College during the year 1990. The College Committee, which is the appointing authority, at its meeting held on 3. 6. The Management of the College in their counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, specifically pleaded and not disputed by the first respondent-Writ Petitioner (M.V.Jayalakhmi) that there were three vacancies in the post of Office Assistant in the College during the year 1990. The College Committee, which is the appointing authority, at its meeting held on 3. 1990, considered the applications for appointment to the post of Office Assistant and after interviewing the applicants and considering their academic qualifications and other merits of the applicants, selected the following candidates for appointment to the post of Office Assistant fixing the seniority in the serial order in which their names were given and shown hereunder: .(1) G.S.Vijayakumar (2) P.R.Bindulekha (appellant in W.A.2502 of 2002/fourth respondent in W.P) .(3) M.V.Jayalakshmi (first respondent in both the W.As./Writ Petitioner) .(4) Ajaykumar The first three candidates in the above said Sl.Nos.1 to 3 were appointed as Office Assistants on the same day, i.e. on 23. 1990. The details of their qualifications and other relevant particulars were furnished as follows: 7. The main plea as was taken by the first respondent-M.V.Jayalakshmi in her Writ Petition was that she was elder than the appellant-P.R.Bindhulekha (fourth respondent in W.P.) and that she should have been declared senior for promotion to the higher post of Record Clerk. On the other hand, according to the appellant-P.R.Bindhulekha (fourth respondent in the Writ Petition), as she has been shown above the first respondent-M.V.Jayalakshmi in the panel (merit list) at the time of appointment, she (appellant-P.R.Bindhulekha) was rightly shown senior to the first respondent-Writ Petitioner (M.V.Jayalakshmi). .8. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 17. 2002 in W.P.No.4475 of 1995, noticed the fact that the College was amenable to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. As per Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, though the provision was made for promotion to the higher non-teaching post, the Rules do not indicate as to how the inter-se seniority is to be determined when two persons are appointed on the same day. As per Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, though the provision was made for promotion to the higher non-teaching post, the Rules do not indicate as to how the inter-se seniority is to be determined when two persons are appointed on the same day. The learned single Judge proceeded to state that in the absence of any provision under the Rules, the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules are applicable to the College and in terms of third proviso to Sub-Rule (aa) of Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, declared the Writ Petitioner (M.V.Jayalakshmi) as senior to the appellant-P.R.Bindhulekha on the basis of age. .9. Third proviso of the above Sub-Rule (aa) of Rule 35, of which, reliance has been placed by the learned single Judge, reads as follows: ."Provided also that where persons appointed by more than one method of recruitment are appointed or deemed to have been appointed to the service, class, category or grade on the same day, their inter-se seniority shall be decided with reference to their age." 10. So far as the stand of the College that the seniority was determined on the basis of the panel is concerned, the learned single Judge was of the view that the seniority list of 1990 cannot be relied upon, as it has not reached finality after calling for objections against the said provisional list. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the relevant Rules and noticed the rival contentions made by the parties. 12. It is not in dispute that both the appellant (P.R.Bindhulekha) and the first respondent (M.V.Jayalakshmi) were appointed pursuant to the same transaction by direct recruitment to the post of Office Assistant. They appeared in the common interview along with others before the College Committee in its meeting held on 3. 1990. After interview of the applicants and considering their qualifications and other merits, a panel of Office Assistants was prepared showing their inter-se seniority therein and both of them along with another (altogether three persons) were appointed on the same day, i.e. on 23. 1990 and also joined on the same day, i.e. on 23. 1990. 13. The question of determination of seniority arises only on appointment to a post. No such question arises prior to issuance of an order of appointment. 1990 and also joined on the same day, i.e. on 23. 1990. 13. The question of determination of seniority arises only on appointment to a post. No such question arises prior to issuance of an order of appointment. From the proceedings of the College Committee, of which a reference has been made to paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit as was filed by the College Management before the learned single Judge, it would be evident that the inter-se seniority position of the candidates was shown therein, which is commonly known as merit list of the candidates and the word "seniority" used therein is redundant, as it merely reflected the inter-se merit of the candidates. Thus, it cannot be stated that the list as was prepared on 3. 1990 at the time of interview, was the seniority list prepared, nor it can be accepted that such seniority list was prepared prior to appointment and therefore, the question of calling for any application giving opportunity to any persons for finalisation of the so-called seniority list, does not arise. The learned single Judge in fact, failed to appreciate the fact that it was the merit list and not the seniority list. 14. So far as seniority is concerned, it is generally guided by the Rules or guidelines if any framed by the competent authority. In the absence of any such guideline, normal rule in the matter of direct recruitment is that a person who is higher in the merit list, shall rank senior to those who are lower in the merit list, if appointed in the same transaction pursuant to the same selection. It cannot be depended either on the date of issuance of letter of appointment or on the fortuitous circumstances to the date of joining. In fact, the date of joining depends on the place of posting. 15. It cannot be depended either on the date of issuance of letter of appointment or on the fortuitous circumstances to the date of joining. In fact, the date of joining depends on the place of posting. 15. In the present case, even if it is accepted that in the absence of specific rule framed under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules are applicable to the College in question, as observed by the learned single Judge, still, we are of the view that the third proviso to Sub-Rule (aa) of Rule 35 as quoted above and referred to by the learned single Judge, is not applicable in the matter of direct recruitment and the seniority in the matter of direct recruitment is guided by Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, which reads as follows: "Rule 35: The Seniority of a person in a service: (a) The seniority of a person in a service, class or category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or other appointing authority, as the case may be, subject to the rule of reservation where it applies. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority." 16. In view of Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, as quoted above, the name of the appellant (P.R.Bindhulekha) having been placed above the name of the first respondent (M.V.Jayalakshmi) in the merit list, the appellant-P.R.Bindhulekha is senior to the first respondent-M.V.Jayalakshmi. 17. It is settled law that a Writ Court cannot suo-motu set aside the order which is not under challenge and a copy of the same if not enclosed. Admittedly, the first respondent-M.V.Jayalakshmi (Writ Petitioner) had not challenged the order of promotion of the appellant (P.R.Bindhulekha), dated 210. 1994. Admittedly, no prayer was made to set aside the said order of promotion dated 210. Admittedly, the first respondent-M.V.Jayalakshmi (Writ Petitioner) had not challenged the order of promotion of the appellant (P.R.Bindhulekha), dated 210. 1994. Admittedly, no prayer was made to set aside the said order of promotion dated 210. 1994, though a prayer was made to direct College authorities to cancel the said order of promotion, but without giving any opinion with regard to the legality and propriety of such order of promotion, and without giving any direction to cancel such order of promotion, the learned single Judge passed the order to promote the first respondent-M.V.Jayalakshmi (Writ Petitioner), which is not permissible. 18. It is also settled law that an employee may have a right to be considered for promotion, but no employee has a right to be promoted. The question whether a person is fit for promotion or not, cannot be determined or adjudged by a Writ Court, which is depending on the Service Records and it has to be only determined by an expert member of the Select Committee. Without giving any direction to such Committee, it was not open for the learned single Judge to direct the College Management to promote the first respondent-M.V.Jayalakshmi (Writ Petitioner) from a particular date, that too without looking into the question whether she was fit for promotion or not, on the particular date on the basis of her Service Records. 19. In view of the aforesaid finding and infirmities as brought to our notice, the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be upheld. We accordingly set aside the order dated 17. 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4475 of 1995. Both the Writ Appeals are allowed. But there shall be no order as to costs. W.A.M.Ps. are closed. However, this order will not stand in the way of the College for considering the case of the first respondent-Writ Petitioner (M.V.Jayalakshmi) for promotion to the higher post in her own turn as and when such vacancy arises.