Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed the Original Application on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to call for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.MS.No.39, Transport ® Department, dated 20.03.2000 and quash the same in so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned and to direct the first respondent to include the petitioners name in the panel of Office Managers for the year 1998-99 with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner as well as 3rd respondent were appointed as Clerk on regular basis in Fire Service Department. The 3rd respondent was appointed on 10.05.1965, whereas the petitioner was appointed on 07.06.1966. Subsequently, both petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent were retrenched from the fire Service Department for want of vacancies and again the petitioner was absorbed in Motor Vehicles Maintenance Organisation as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.04.1972. The 3rd respondent, V.Jegannatha, was regularly appointed as clerk on 10.05.1965 and he was ousted from service for want of vacancy with effect from 18.05.1966. Again, he was reappointed as Clerk on 14.06.1966 and again ousted from service for want of vacancy on 30.09.1966 and after that, he was reappointed as Clerk on 01.10.66. However, his services for the period from 10.05.1965 to 11.08.1966 were not counted and the same was treated as break in service and was not condoned. When the petitioner was appointed in Motor Vehicles Maintenance Organisation as Junior Assistant on 01.04.1972, he was subsequently promoted as Assistant on 10.07.73, whereas the 3rd respondent was promoted as Assistant only on 02.07.77. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 14.03.1988 and after completing 10 years of service, he was also granted the benefit of selection grade. Whileso, the 2nd respondent prepared a seniority list on 01.01.95. In the said seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.21, whereas the 3rd respondent was placed at Sl.No.20. Disagreeing with the seniority list, the petitioner made a representation to the Government. The Government also, after considering the representation made by the petitioner, by letter dated 24.06.1997, directed the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and refix his seniority in accordance with law. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 23.03.1999, placed the petitioner above the 3rd respondent. But, his name in the list of Superintendents fit for appointment as Office Manager for the year 1998-99, was not considered. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 23.03.1999, placed the petitioner above the 3rd respondent. But, his name in the list of Superintendents fit for appointment as Office Manager for the year 1998-99, was not considered. Therefore, the present Original Application came to be filed, which stood transferred as writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred to Motor Vehicles Maintenance Organisation on 01.04.1972 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant on 10.07.1973 much prior to the 3rd respondent, who came to the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Organisation on 06.05.1972 and again, he was also promoted as Assistant only on 02.07.1977. At this juncture, his further submission is that when the petitioner was all along shown as senior in the department of Motor Vehicles Maintenance Organisation, his name should be included in the list of Superintendents fit for appointment as Office Manager for the year 1998-99. On that basis, prayed for inclusion of the petitioners name. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent were originally working in the Fire Service Department. In the Fire Service Department, the 3rd respondents date of appointment being 10.05.1965, which is prior to the date of appointment of the petitioner, who has appointed on 07.06.1966, the 2nd respondent, by taking into account, the earlier service of the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent, rightly placed the petitioner in the seniority list at Sl.No.21, while keeping the name of the 3rd respondent at Sl.No.20. Subsequently, when the petitioner made a representation before the Government, the Government by order dated 24.06.1997, directed the 2nd respondent to refix the seniority of the petitioner. On the basis of the direction given by the Government, the seniority of the petitioner was refixed between 17 and 18. But, since the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were drafted from the Fire Service Department with effect from 01.04.1972, their seniority was fixed according to their date of appointment in the Fire Service Department, because, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 10.07.73, whereas the 3rd respondent was promoted as Assistant only on 02.07.77. But, since the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were drafted from the Fire Service Department with effect from 01.04.1972, their seniority was fixed according to their date of appointment in the Fire Service Department, because, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 10.07.73, whereas the 3rd respondent was promoted as Assistant only on 02.07.77. However, as the seniority of these two individuals were revised in the post of Junior Assistant on 04.11.1977, the seniority in the post of Assistant prior to 04.11.1977, automatically changed and during the year 1987, the panel for the post of Superintendents was prepared for the year 1987-88 in Proc.No.A2/14401/87, dated 09.07.87 by the 2nd respondent, in which, the name of the 3rd respondent stood at Sl.No.3 and the name of the petitioner stood at Sl.No.4. By virtue of the above said seniority list, the 3rd respondent was promoted as Assistant on 01.03.1988 by the 2nd respondent and he joined duty as Superintendent on 09.05.1988. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as Superintendent on 11.03.1988 by the 2nd respondent and he also joined as Superintendent on 14.03.1988. However, the date of joining will not affect the seniority. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. There was an appeal made to revise the seniority of the persons came from the Fire Service Department. While disposing of the said appeal, the Government in letter dated 24.06.1997, directed the 2nd respondent to refix the seniority of the petitioner. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent herein issued order dated 24.07.1997, placing the petitioner in the seniority list above Tmt.Vatsalabai and below Mr.Bagavan Singh in the category of Assistant. In any event, while considering the fact that the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent came from the Fire Service Department, the seniority of the 3rd respondent has to be taken as a first in service and therefore, he was considered as senior to the petitioner. On that basis, the 2nd respondent prepared a seniority list and the same was also subsequently accepted by the Government, by approving the regular list of Superintendents fit for appointment as Office Manager for the year 1998-99 in the Tamil Nadu General Service by recruitment by transfer, in G.O.Ms.No.39, Transport (H1) Department, dated 20.03.2000. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the approved regular list of Superintendents fit for appointment as Office Manager for the year 1998-99. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the approved regular list of Superintendents fit for appointment as Office Manager for the year 1998-99. Further, the contention of the petitioner also cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that the 2nd respondent has rightly given due consideration to the date of entry into service of the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent in the original department, namely, Fire Service Department, where admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 07.06.1966 as Junior Assistant, whereas the 3rd respondent was appointed on 10.05.1965 as Junior Assistant, which is prior to the date of the appointment of the petitioner. 7. In that view of the matter, the placement of the petitioner below the 3rd respondent will not in any way affect the seniority in the category. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.