Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner questioning the seniority list in the cadre of Jailors issued by the second respondent for the year 2005 and 2006 respectively. As the facts are same, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. The facts as culled out from the pleadings go as follows:-Consequent on the taken over of the Sub Jails from the control of the revenue department and replacing of police personnel by the personnel of Jail Department, 65 posts of Assistant Jailor have to be filled up. The post of Assistant Jailor has to be filled up by promotion and by direct recruitment in the ratio of 50:50. One of the qualification for promotion from the feeder category of Chief Head Warder is that the candidate must have worked for one year in the said feeder category. As no qualified candidate for promotion as Assistant Jailor was available, direct recruitment was resorted to and Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was addressed on 110. 1982 to select 65 Assistant Jailors. Subsequently, another 24 posts of Assistant Jailors were identified and it was intimated to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 212. 1982. Pending selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the vacancies were filled up by promotion from the category of Chief Head Warders under Rule 39(a)(i) of the General Rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules during April 1983. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission selected 86 candidates and communicated the same to the respondents on 012. 1984. 66 of them were appointed as the remaining 20 were not reported duty. Out of the total vacancies of 136 Assistant Jailors, the remaining posts were filled up by promotion and the promotees were regularized in the post of Assistant Jailors on 19.03.1985. With reference to the date of regularization, seniority was fixed placing the promotees below the direct recruits Assistant Jailors, in the proceedings of the Inspector General of Prison dated 04.02.1987. In the said list, the direct recruit Assistant Jailors were placed in Sl.No.25 onwards and the promotees Assistant Jailors were placed in Sl.No.93 onwards. The petitioner, as a direct recruit Assistant Jailor was placed in Sl.No.30. 3. In the said list, the direct recruit Assistant Jailors were placed in Sl.No.25 onwards and the promotees Assistant Jailors were placed in Sl.No.93 onwards. The petitioner, as a direct recruit Assistant Jailor was placed in Sl.No.30. 3. The promotees Assistant Jailors aggrieved by the seniority fixed as above, filed original application in O.A.No.126 of 1991 seeking for the relief to set aside the seniority list dated 04.02.1987 and for a direction to place them over and above the direct recruits Assistant Jailors. The original application was allowed on 04.03.1993 as prayed for with a direction to regularize the services of the promotee Assistant Jailors from the date on which they were fully qualified, if that was subsequent to the temporary appointment or from the date of temporary appointment, if on that date they were fully qualified and fix the seniority on that basis. Accordingly, the Inspector General of Prisons issued orders regularizing the services of the promotee Assistant Jailors with effect from 08.09.1983, ie., the date on which they were fully qualified and published the revised seniority list of Assistant Jailors fixing the seniority above the directly recruited Assistant Jailors by proceedings dated 25.03.1994. The Direct recruit Assistant Jailors filed a review application in R.A.No.153 of 1993 to review the order dated 09.03.1993 made in O.A.No.126 of 1991. The same was dismissed on 13.04.1994. Subsequently, the matter was carried by way of Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.13000 and 14296 of 194. The Apex Court, while setting aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal made on 09.03.1993 in O.A.No.126 of 1991 remitted the case back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal vide its order dated 09.01.1995. After remand, the Tribunal by its order dated 19.06.1996, passed an order to place 15 promotee Assistant Jailors over and above the directly recruited Assistant Jailors appointed during 1985. A revised seniority list of Assistant Jailors was published by the Inspector General of Prison by his proceedings dated 20.07.1996 as per the order of the Tribunal by placing 15 promotee Assistant Jailors over and above the direct recruit Assistant Jailors. In the list, the petitioner was placed in Sl.No.56. Again, the petitioner and two others filed a review application in R.A.No.116 of 1996 to review the order and the same was dismissed on 05.05.1997. In the list, the petitioner was placed in Sl.No.56. Again, the petitioner and two others filed a review application in R.A.No.116 of 1996 to review the order and the same was dismissed on 05.05.1997. It appears that the writ petition filed against the said order was disposed of by this Court, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without interfering with the order of the Tribunal in W.P.No.9666 of 1998. Pursuant to the same, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.46, Home (Prison II) Department, dated 18.01.2000, restoring the seniority of the Assistant Jailors/Temporary Deputy Jailors in the panel for the post of Deputy Jailors for the year 1988-89. The petitioner, once again challenged the said G.O.Ms.No.46, Home (Prison II) Department, dated 18.01.2000 (Seniority list published in accordance with the order of the Tribunal) in O.A.No.2513 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the same was taken up as Writ Petition in W.P.No.40712 of 2006. By reason best known to the petitioner, he withdrew the same and hence O.A.No.2512 of 2000 was dismissed as withdrawn by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.01.2008. .4. The petitioner while working as Deputy Jailor was temporarily promoted as a Jailor under Rule 39(a)(i) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1098 dated 29.07.1997. While that being so, 6 posts of direct recruit Jailor were notified for selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for the year 1997-98, 4 posts for the year 1999-2000, 1 post for the year 2001-2002) and respondents 3 to 8 were selected and appointed as Jailors with effect from 07.04.2004, in G.O.Ms.No.484 dated 24.03.2004. After completion of the training for a period of nine months, they were absorbed in the regular post. The incumbents who were working as Jailors on temporary basis including the writ petitioner were reverted to the post of Deputy Jailors for want of vacancy in G.O.(D)No.21, Home (Pr.I), dated 07.01.2005. 5. The crucial date of drawing the seniority list in the respondent department is first January of every year. Accordingly, the seniority list of Jailors as on 01.01.2005 was published by the Additional Director General of Prisons, by his proceedings dated 02.01.2005. Since the petitioner, temporary Jailor was reverted to the substantive post of Deputy Jailor, his name was not included in the regular list. Accordingly, the seniority list of Jailors as on 01.01.2005 was published by the Additional Director General of Prisons, by his proceedings dated 02.01.2005. Since the petitioner, temporary Jailor was reverted to the substantive post of Deputy Jailor, his name was not included in the regular list. The names of respondents 3 to 8 who were appointed as Jailors by direct recruitment with effect from 07.04.2004 have been included in the seniority list. That is questioned by the petitioner in the writ petition in W.P.No.77876 of 2005. The seniority list drawn as on 01.01.2006 is questioned in W.P.No.24648 of 2006. 6. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of Jailor when he was temporarily promoted on 29.07.1997. He should have been placed above the direct recruit Jailors, who have been appointed with effect from 07.04.2004. When the petitioner and others were directly recruited to the post of Assistant Jailors, they were directed to be placed below the promotee Assistant Jailors by the Tribunal. The same principle would apply to the case of the petitioner in the cadre of Jailor also. As the petitioner was qualified and was temporarily promoted as early as 29.07.1997, he should be placed over and above the directly recruited Jailors who were appointed from 07.04.2004. .7. We are not able to subscribe our view to the contention made on behalf of the petitioner. The peculiar case which was considered by the Tribunal in O.A.No.126 of 1991 was not a comparable case to the present one. The En masse promotion had to be made in view of the fact that several Sub Jails which were under the control of the revenue department had been taken over under the control of the Jail Department. As such there were nearly 136 vacancies which have to be filled up. The ratio between direct recruitment and promotees is 50:50 and the promotee Assistant Jailors were promoted to the substantive post available for them. Here, in this case, it is apparent that 6 vacancies of Jailors earmarked for direct recruit. The petitioner was temporarily promoted for the purpose of administration to hold the post of Jailors, which is meant for direct recruitment. Here, in this case, it is apparent that 6 vacancies of Jailors earmarked for direct recruit. The petitioner was temporarily promoted for the purpose of administration to hold the post of Jailors, which is meant for direct recruitment. Under Rule 39(a)(i) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, such temporary promotion would not confer any right on the petitioner to claim any seniority in the promoted post. As per Rule 39(e) of the said Rules, the service of a person promoted under Sub-rule (a) shall be liable to be terminated by the appointing authority at any time without notice without any reason being assigned. Further, the very fact was that on 07.01.2005 the petitioner was reverted from the cadre of temporary Jailors in order to give posting to the directly Jailors. When he was not even a temporary Jailer, when the directly recruited respondents 3 to 8 were appointed as Jailors on 07.04.2004 in the cadre post meant for direct recruitment, he cannot claim seniority over and above them. Respondents 3 to 8 were selected and appointed as Jailors by direct recruitment on 07.04.2004 on regular basis. Their names have been placed in appropriate place in the seniority list of Jailors drawn as on 01.01.2005 published by the Additional Director General of Prison dated 01.02.2005. A person who is appointed temporarily to discharge a function in a particular post cannot be said to be in service till such time his appointment is regularized and he cannot claim any seniority. Usual reference can be had of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Madalamuthu and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1451, R.K. Mobisana Singh vs. KH. Temba Singh and Others reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 747 and particularly the Constitution Bench Decision in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Assn. vs. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 . 8. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we find that there is no merit in the writ petitions and hence the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.