Judgment :- M.CHOCKALILNGAM, J. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner one M.R.Senthilkumar has brought forth this petition for issuance of a writ of declaration to declare the amendment dated 5.12.2006, to the Madras High Court Service Rules insofar as it provides for promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer in the ratio of 4:1:1 from the posts of Assistants/Typists/Computer Operators without reference to the actual length of service put in by individual employees, as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Section Officer with effect from 22.3.2006. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition, counter affidavit and reply are all perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondent. 3. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition, counter affidavit and reply are all perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Typist on 9.8.2000; that he was promoted as Assistant on 18.3.2004; that the promotion order would indicate that it was in the order of seniority; that no seniority list was published in the category of Typists and Assistants; that the persons who were appointed to the post of Typist/Copyist/Reader several months after the petitioner, were shown senior to him in the promotion list dated 18.3.2004; that on enquiry, he was informed that the seniority was drawn on the basis of age; that since a merit list was prepared for the common entrance test, the seniority in the feeder category ought to have been fixed on the basis of the merit list; that the post of Computer Operators was newly sanctioned but no rules were framed; that a nominal test was conducted for the purpose of promotion to the post of Computer Operators; that he was selected to the said post with effect from 8.10.2004; that in the meantime, the respondent framed recruitment rules for the post of Computer Operators by notification dated 5.12.2006; that Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Service Rules deals with promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer (ASO); that as per the earlier Rule, promotion to the post of ASO was done in the ratio of 4:1 between the Assistants and Typists; that the same was amended to reserve the 6th vacancy for Computer Operators; that in other words, the vacancies in the post of ASO would be filled in the ratio of 4:1:1 from among Assistants, Typists and Computer Operators respectively; that the operation of this ratio without reference to the actual length of service put in by individuals has led to an anomalous situation wherein persons juniors to the petitioner have been promoted; that more than 80 persons who are junior to him, have been promoted as ASOs; that in view of the above, he is not likely to be considered for promotion to the post of ASO; that the so-called amendment would adversely affect the career of Computer Operators like the petitioner; that the respondent should take into consideration the seniority of the Computer Operators in the post of Assistants by taking the date of appointment to the post of Assistants as the relevant date and on the basis of such seniority, promote persons to the post of ASO; that in the alternative, the respondent should take the entire length of service of a candidate from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of promotion to the post of ASO; that under the circumstances, the action of the respondent is illegal and unjust, and hence the writ petition has been filed. 4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners seniority in the cadre of Typist on joining duty was Sl.No.23; that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant fixing his seniority among 54 candidates promoted to the post of Assistant, at No.37 according to the age; that the petitioner having accepted his promotion as Assistant with the said seniority in March 2004 and further having exercised his option to come under the newly created distinct post of Computer Operator with better pay scale in October 2004, may not now be allowed to challenge the fixation of seniority in the post of Assistant; that once the petitioner had appeared for the skill test conducted for the promotional post of Computer Operator and got selected and promoted as Computer Operator with the seniority on the basis of the marks scored in the skill test and exercised his option to come under the new post, his challenging the fixation of seniority in the post of Assistant got extinguished; that separate seniority lists are maintained in respect of the three feeder categories of Assistants, Typists and Computer Operators; that while drawing a panel for promotion to the post of ASO, eligible persons are selected on the basis of their seniority from the said three categories in the said ratio; that in this process, a person in a particular feeder category, though junior in length of service as against a person in the other two feeder categories, may have the advantage of accelerated promotion, which is inevitable, but the anomaly of junior within a particular feeder category getting promoted is not possible; that the petitioner and other selected Computer Operators before exercising their option were orally informed that the Rules proposed to be framed may go to their disadvantage on certain aspects, and hence the petition was to be dismissed. 5. 5. The learned Counsel advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner in extenso would submit that the operation of the ratio of 4:1:1 is arbitrary; that the same has led to the promotion of the juniors to the post of ASO; that the petitioner ought to have been given option to revert back to the post of Assistant at the time when the Madras High Court Service Rules were amended and the ratio of 4:1:1 was fixed; that it is pertinent to point out that 62 juniors are likely to be promoted overlooking the petitioners claim; that if the same is allowed, it would cause hardship to him; and that under the circumstances, the amendment dated 5.12.2006 has got to be declared as illegal and the petitioner be promoted to the post of ASO. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent in short would submit that it is a case where the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted on the reasons that the petitioner as on today working as a Computer Operator cannot seek for reversion since no Rule envisages such a situation; that apart from that, the Rule came to be amended on 5.12.2006; that after a period of three years, he has brought forth this petition; that as far as certain individuals are concerned, in case of one Ramakrishnan, at the time when he was posted to Madurai Bench, he immediately gave a letter that he should be continued as Assistant; that the petitioner who has all along been serving as Computer Operator pursuant to the promotion which was followed by a skill test, cannot now be permitted either to challenge the Rules or to get a reversion so as to make the situation convenient to go on promotion to another post, and hence the petitioner is not entitled to the relief asked for. 7. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. It is not in controversy that the petitioner herein joined in the High Court service as Typist on 9.8.2000. It is also admitted that he got promotion as Assistant on 18.3.2004. While working so, the High Court called for the skill test for the post of Computer Operators, and it was to be made from the category of Assistants. 117 Assistants applied for the said post, and they also competed for 20 posts which were available at that time. It is also admitted that he got promotion as Assistant on 18.3.2004. While working so, the High Court called for the skill test for the post of Computer Operators, and it was to be made from the category of Assistants. 117 Assistants applied for the said post, and they also competed for 20 posts which were available at that time. Accordingly, 20 persons were selected on satisfaction in their skill test and in that list prepared by the High Court, the petitioner was in the 17th place. He joined as Computer Operator on 8.10.2004 and has been working so. It is also not in dispute that there was an amendment to the Rule that was made on 5.12.2006 wherein it was found that as far as the promotion to fill up the post of ASO, the ratio was to be followed at 4:1:1 from Assistants, Typists and Computer Operators respectively. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been working as Computer Operator, and the post of ASO could be filled up from the last sixth one. 9. It is also an admitted position that the Rule was amended on 5.12.2006, and the petitioner was actually promoted to fill up the post of Computer Operator. He has also been working so all along the period as referred to above. Now, he feels it so inconvenient that he could not get promotion as ASO, and the ratio for the said post was actually 1 out of 6. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, no Rule envisages such a situation that any employee can get demotion to his convenience and go or compete for the other post. It could be well seen that as far as the Assistants are concerned, out of 6, 4 posts of ASOs are to be filled up from Assistants. Though the rule was amended on 5.12.2006, while he has been working as Computer Operator which he wanted at his choice, now he cannot be allowed to have a reversion to the post of Assistant so that he could come in the first four thereby enabling him to get promotion as ASO. Though the rule was amended on 5.12.2006, while he has been working as Computer Operator which he wanted at his choice, now he cannot be allowed to have a reversion to the post of Assistant so that he could come in the first four thereby enabling him to get promotion as ASO. The learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that as far as the promotion to the post of ASO is concerned, there are certain anomalies, and as far as the ratio of 4:1:1 was concerned, it was taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter, and it was actually filled. The learned Counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that 4:1:1 has not been strictly followed; but, there are certain deviations made. Even assuming to be so, that cannot be a reason to strike down the Rules because it was taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter before framing the Rules. Having accepted the post of Computer Operator on appearing in the test and having passed, now the petitioner cannot be allowed to have a reversion to make it convenient to get promotion since four posts are available for promotion from the category of Assistant. 10. Above all, this Court is able to notice laches also. Once he has been working all along as Computer Operator, he cannot now be permitted on the ground of laches also. Under the circumstances, this Court feels that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief asked for. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.