Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner reverting the Petitioner from the post of Bill Collector to the post of pump cleaner and restraining the Respondents from promoting the 4th Respondent to the post of Bill Collector. 2. Petitioner joined services of the Respondents as pump cleaner w.e.f 28.02.1997 and he was appointed through Employment Exchange. On his appointment as pump cleaner his pay scale was fixed. One Kanniappan who was working as Revenue Assistant was promoted as Junior Assistant and the post held by Kanniappan fell vacant. By the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent the Petitioner was promoted as Bill Collector w.e.f 18.01.2008. 3. 4th Respondent was appointed as turn-cock on 212. 1986 in the regular time scale of pay and his services were regularised in the said post. Consequent to the upgradation of the Municipality he was absorbed in Vandavasi Municipality. Case of 4th Respondent is that he is senior to the Petitioner and to be considered for promotion. 4th Respondent has submitted his representation for promotion to the post of Bill Collector claiming his seniority. According to 4th Respondent without verifying the seniority writ petitioner was mistakenly promoted in the said proceedings dated 18.01.2005. When the 4th Respondent preferred appeal to the 2nd Respondent- Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Vellore. The order was passed in proceedings dated 06.03.2008 directing the 3rd Respondent to cancel the promotion of the junior and to promote the senior. Consequently by proceedings dated 25.03.2008, 3rd Respondent issued seniority list and sought for objections from the other employees, it was at that stage the Petitioner preferred this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.T.S.Rajamohan and the learned counsel for the 4th Respondent Mr.S.M.Subramaniam. Heard Ms.C.K.Vishnupriya learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent and learned Addl.Govt.Pleader Mr.N.Senthilkumar, for Respondents 1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the 4th Respondent was in Panchayat service and later when he was absorbed in Municipality, 4th Respondent cannot claim seniority. The learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner has been promoted as Bill Collector in January 2008 and has been functioning since then and the Petitioner cannot be reverted. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the 4th Respondent was in Panchayat service and later when he was absorbed in Municipality, 4th Respondent cannot claim seniority. The learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner has been promoted as Bill Collector in January 2008 and has been functioning since then and the Petitioner cannot be reverted. 6. Learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent Municipality submitted that by the proceedings dated 25.03.2008, seniority list has been prepared and if the Petitioner has got any objection it is for him to raise the objection and the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the 4th Respondent submitted that before preparation of seniority list Petitioner was promoted and now the draft seniority list has been prepared and if the Petitioner is aggrieved he could very well make the representation to the 3rd Respondent. 8. Aggrieved by, over looking of his seniority 4th Respondent has preferred appeal before the 2nd Respondent – Regional Director of Municipal Administration. By the proceedings dated 06.03.2008, 2nd Respondent has directed the 3rd Respondent to cancel the promotion of the junior (petitioner) and promote the senior. Accordingly seniority list was also prepared on 25.03.2008. As per draft list of seniority published by 3rd Respondent – Municipality the 4th Respondent is senior. When the Petitioner is in Sl.No.3 as a matter of right the Petitioner cannot claim right of promotion. Petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus which presupposes legal right in favour of the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has no such legal right to claim promotion and continuation in the promotional post no writ of mandamus could be issued. 9. Writ of mandamus could be issued to the Authorities to act in accordance with rules and statutory provisions. No writ of mandamus could be issued to the Authorities to act in violation of rules and by passing the seniority. Therefore even on that ground the Petitioner is not entitled for the direction sought for in the writ petition. 10. For the foregoing reason this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.