Judgment :- M. Venugopal, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records in O.A.No.528 of 2009 and the order dated 10.04.2008 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same. 2. The first respondent has filed the Original Application before the second respondent seeking promotion to Lower Selection Grade (LSG) on the basis of seniority in Circle Gradation list. 3. The case of the first respondent is that he has entered the Department of Posts as Postal Assistant in the Cuddalore Postal Division under the Tamil Nadu Postal Circle consisting the state of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry on 19.05.1967. Later, he was transferred to Kovilpatti Postal Division upon his request. Further he was given juniormost position in the divisional seniority list of Kovilpatti Postal Division though his original seniority was maintained in the circle seniority list. Therefore, on 30.11.1983, a Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) was introduced. By virtue of the scheme, all the Postal Assistants with 16 years continues/satisfactory service were promoted notwithstanding their seniority in the gradation list. Moreover, their position in the Postal Assistants cadre in the Divisional/Circle gradation list was maintained as the Promotion under TBOP was restricted to personal and not against the standard LSG cadre posts. The scale of pay of TBOP and LSG supervisory was identical. But the officials promoted to LSG prior to 111. 1983 were allowed to continue to man the LSG supervisory posts granting special allowance of Rs.35/-per month. Later, the distinction between the TBOP and LSG was removed, withdrawing the special allowances of Rs.35/- and posting of officials were made interchangeable treating TBOP and LSG as one cadre (LSG). The cadre of LSG was divisionalised as per Letter No.6-19/82-SPB II date 112. 1985 enabling the Divisional Head to promote the Personal Assistants to the cadre of LSG within the Division. As there were no orders about the filling up of LSG both TBOP and LSG officials manned the LSG posts. 4. Another scheme by name Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) was introduced by the Department by which the officials who had completed 26 years in the Postal Assistant cadre were promoted to Higher Grade which was equivalent and identical to the Higher Selection Grade and this cadre continued to be the Circle cadre. 4. Another scheme by name Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) was introduced by the Department by which the officials who had completed 26 years in the Postal Assistant cadre were promoted to Higher Grade which was equivalent and identical to the Higher Selection Grade and this cadre continued to be the Circle cadre. BCR promotion was given only with reference to the 26 years of satisfactory service and it had nothing to do with the seniority either in the Divisional or Circle seniority list. Added further, no steps as in the case of LSG standards post were taken to fill up HSG II standard posts for a long time and officials promoted under BCR scheme were allowed to man the vacant posts. Further, the new recruitment rules for P & T selection grade posts, came into force as per Notification dated 24.01.2002 in and by which, minimum regular service of 10 years in the feeder cadre of LSSG supervisory was required to occupy the standard HSG II post which is the feeder cadre for further promotion to HSG I. Since a lot of posts of both LSG and HSG II remained vacant due to the retirement/death etc., for a quite long time and officials promoted under TBOP and BCR were working in the above said vacant posts, the Director General of Posts by means of a letter dated 111. 2002, ordered to fill up those vacancies by the competent authorities retrospectively and notionally from the year when norm based promotion had not been carried out so that eligible officials would get LSG promotion retrospectively to enable them to get HSG II promotion and HSG I by gaining the minimum service in the feeder cadre. 5. As far as the Kovilpatti Division is concerned, the officials were promoted on the basis of divisional seniority as contended by the first respondent and that his juniors were given notional promotion to LSG with effect from 010. 1996 whereas he was promoted to LSG only with effect from 01.06.2005. 6. 5. As far as the Kovilpatti Division is concerned, the officials were promoted on the basis of divisional seniority as contended by the first respondent and that his juniors were given notional promotion to LSG with effect from 010. 1996 whereas he was promoted to LSG only with effect from 01.06.2005. 6. The substance of the claim of the first respondent is that the decision of the first petitioner to promote him on a later date and allowing promotion to the officials who are far juniors to him much earlier by ignoring his circle seniority is arbitrary, unilateral and is in violation of recruitment rules of LSG and sub rule 3 of Rule 38 of P & T Manual and subsequent clarification issued by the Director General of Posts and therefore, the first respondent has sought for the relief of direction to the petitioners to promote him to LSG, taking his circle seniority into consideration from the date of which his immediate junior R. Margaret Rajam had been promoted to LSG with all consequential benefits to enable him to get his due promotions to HSG II and HSG I as he is due to retire on 30.04.2008. 7. The petitioners, who are the respondents before the Tribunal have stated in the reply that the transferee as per Rule 38 having agreed to abide by the condition that he would rank junior to all the officials of the new division could be considered for promotion only on the basis of divisional seniority and the stand of the first respondent that the seniority list maintained is only for temporary arrangement is not correct and further since LSG cadre was divisionalised in the year 1985, promotion could be made only on the basis of divisional gradation list and R. Margaret Rajam and others who are seniors to the first respondents in the divisional gradation list were given notional promotion to LSG cadre and the first respondent was promoted to LSG on his turn as per the divisional seniority list and therefore, the promotions given were as per the LSG rules prevailing at the time of promotion and the LSG cadre was made as a circle cadre again after 30.05.2006. 8. 8. To the reply filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, the first respondent had projected the rejoinder reiterating that he becomes juniormost in the divisional gradation list and he retains his original seniority in the circle seniority list, which is the basis for promotion to LSG. 9. The core question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the promotion of the first respondent to LSG cadre will be on the basis of divisional seniority or circle seniority. 10. In this connection, under sub rule 3 of Rule 38 of P & T Manual, it is mentioned that if the old and new unit form parts of a wider unit for the purpose of promotion to a higher cadre the transferee (whether by mutual exchange or otherwise) will retain his original seniority in the gradation list of the wider unit. For example, a Post Office Clerk transferred from Mehsana Division to Kaira Division in the same circle will not lose his seniority in the circle gradation list or promotion to the lower selection grade. Suffice it for us to point out whatever circular that has been issued, cannot, in the eye of law, override a Rule in the considered opinion of this Court. 11. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, nowhere it is mentioned that whether the first respondent is entitled to get promotion prior to 112. 1985 as per the circle seniority list cadre and in turn they have considered the circle seniority basis with effect from 18.05.1986 viz., from which date, LSG was declared as circle cadre. 12. By adverting to the letter of the Director General of Posts in No.6-19/82-SPB dated 112. 1985 introducing the divisionlisation of the LSG cadre, it is to be pointed out that the said letter in the first paragraph goes to the effect that “the Lower Selection Grade in the Department of Posts is a circle cadre at present and in this cadre, posts are filled by promotion of officials in the cadre of Postal/Sorting Assistant”. It is not cut of place to point cut that the first respondent was transferred from Cuddalore to Kovilpatti in the year 1973 prior to the divisionalisation which took place in the year 1985. It is not cut of place to point cut that the first respondent was transferred from Cuddalore to Kovilpatti in the year 1973 prior to the divisionalisation which took place in the year 1985. Even a perusal of the clarification letter dated 06.06.1990 especially clause III, issued by the Director General of Posts in regard to preparation of gradation lists after divisionalisation of LSG cadre, enjoins that since for the purpose of promotion and the TBOP scheme what is to counted for total length of service whether in one division or in different divisions, the condition that the transferees under Rule 38 will rank juniormost in the new division will have effect only to the extent that seniority of such an official in the divisional LSG will be below the officials of that division promoted during the year in question and continuing further, the letter also points out that since prior to divisionalisation of LSG cadre, the Rule 38 transfer of PAs from one division to another division did not adversely affect the seniority of the transferred officials for the purpose of promotion to the LSG. It is also clarified that clause (iii) will be applicable only in the case of transferees from one circle to another and such it is crystal clear that the seniority of transferees from one circle to another will be affected and not those who are transferred within the circle and resultantly, the seniority of the first respondent, who is senior to Margaret Rajam and other in the circle seniority will not be affected. Interestingly, the petitioner/respondents have not adverted to anything about the specific point in their reply statement and this is not a favourable circumstance in their favour, in our considered opinion. 13. On an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances in an integral manner and in view of the detailed, quantitative and qualitative discussion mentioned supra and looking at from any angle, we do not find any illegality or patent irregularity in the order of the second respondent/Tribunal passed in O.A.No.528 of 2007 dated 10.04.2008 and resultantly the writ petition fails. 14. In fine, for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is dismissed.