Judgment :- 1. It has been stated that the petitioners are working as Assistant Engineers in the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division–II), Limited, having its head quarters at Dharmapuri, which had been amalgamated with the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division-I) Limited, vide Notification Order S.O.1478(E), dated 30.12.2003, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, with effect from the date of the notification. 2. According to the said notification the employees of the dissolved company shall become the employees of the resulting company, on the same terms and conditions, which had already existed in the dissolved company. In respect of the fixation of the seniority of the employees in the resulting company the notification reads as follows: "The seniority of all employees other than officers as it existed in the dissolved company immediately before the appointed date would be maintained, implying the seniority, promotional opportunities and transfer among employees up to supervisory level shall remain protected even after amalgamation in the resulting company in respect of employees on roll at the time of issue of orders. The employees recruited thereafter would be transferred within the jurisdiction of the resulting company. The promotions from supervisory cadre to managerial cadre will, however, be as per seniority within the resulting company. The seniority among the managerial cadre shall be recast within the resulting company on merger." 3. It has been further stated that the category of Assistant Engineers is in supervisory level. The next promotion level post is that of Assistant Manager, which is in the managerial cadre. As such the promotion of the petitioners' to the post of Assistant Manager should be based on the seniority of the Assistant Engineers in the amalgamated company. 4. It has also been stated that the service conditions of the employees of the State Transport undertaking are governed by the common service rules. According to the service rules applicable to the petitioners the approved list of candidates, in the panel for promotion, shall be drawn twice a year, in the months of April and October. The promotions shall be with reference to the availability of the vacancies. As per the said rules the appointing authority may promote a person, temporarily, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the rules, only until sufficiently qualified persons are found to fill up the said posts by regular promotion, as per the service rules. 5. The promotions shall be with reference to the availability of the vacancies. As per the said rules the appointing authority may promote a person, temporarily, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the rules, only until sufficiently qualified persons are found to fill up the said posts by regular promotion, as per the service rules. 5. It is also provided that extension of the period of such temporary promotion, beyond the period of three months, shall be done only with the approval of the board. It has also been made clear in the said rules that a person promoted, temporarily, shall not be entitled, by reason of such promotion, to any preferential claim for regular promotion to the concerned posts. 6. It has been further stated that a number of vacancies had arisen during the year, 2001, in the category of Assistant Manager. In fact, there were ten vacancies in the post of Assistant Manager and three vacancies in the post of Deputy Manager, during the year, 2003. However, the respondent had handpicked a few persons, including Junior Level Assistant Engineers and posted them as Assistant Managers (in-charge), without forming a panel of eligible candidates in the post of assistant engineers. Such appointments made by the respondent, in the vacancies in the Assistant Manager cadre, without adhering to the service rules applicable to the filling of vacancies in the said cadre, is arbitrary, illegal and void. Therefore, even if the posts in the cadre of Assistant Manager had been filled up by making temporary appointments of unqualified persons the said posts would be deemed to be vacant. In case, the respondent had prepared the panel of qualified persons from amongst the Assistant Engineers, including the petitioners, as per the service rules, the petitioners would have been regularly promoted in the cadre of Assistant Manager, in the year 2001 itself. 7. In spite of the petitioners making their claim for being promoted to the cadre of Assistant Manager following the 3:1 ratio applicable to such promotions, no action had been taken by the respondents to promote them. If the promotions had been made, regularly, those persons in the posts of Assistant Engineers would have been eligible for twelve posts in the cadre of Assistant Manager. If the promotions had been made, regularly, those persons in the posts of Assistant Engineers would have been eligible for twelve posts in the cadre of Assistant Manager. Since, the petitioners come within the first twelve positions, as per the combined seniority list prepared by the respondent, all the petitioners would have been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Manager, from the time the posts in the said cadre had fallen vacant. Instead, the respondent had filled up the vacancies with unqualified persons and had also allowed them to continue in the cadre of Assistant Manager, beyond the initial period of three months, contrary to the service rules applicable to the petitioners and the other procedures established by law. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The following decisions had been relied on in support of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. 1. Union of India Vs. B.S.Agarwal (1998-AIR (SC)-O-1537) 2. Lal Mohd. V. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. ( 2007(2) SCC 513 ) 3. Union of India V. N.R.Banerjee (1997-AIR (SC-0-3761) 4. V.P.Kamalamma V. Union of India (W.P.No.11256 of 2003, dated 6.1.2005) 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that, as per the Order S.O.1478(E), dated 30.12.2003, notified by the Government of India the promotions from supervisory cadre to the managerial cadre would be as per the seniority within the resulting company. Accordingly, the respondent Corporation had prepared a common seniority list for Assistant Engineers, in the resulting company, and had made certain promotions to the vacant posts in the cadre of Assistant Manager. However, the petitioners had not raised their objections against the common seniority list, prepared by the respondent Corporation, at any point of time. 10. It has also been stated that the directions, orders and instructions issued by the appropriate government and the rules and regulations that may be framed from time to time, in respect of the employees of the respondent Corporation, would prevail over the service rules. As per the instructions issued by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.27, Finance (BPE) Department, dated 21.1.2002, and in the Government Letter, dated 8.11.2002, regarding the ban on creation and filling up of posts in Government departments and undertakings, the vacancies in the concerned posts could not be filled up. As per the instructions issued by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.27, Finance (BPE) Department, dated 21.1.2002, and in the Government Letter, dated 8.11.2002, regarding the ban on creation and filling up of posts in Government departments and undertakings, the vacancies in the concerned posts could not be filled up. Even otherwise, as per the approved organization chart of the year 2001, there was only one post of Assistant Manager, in the technical category, was vacant. It could not be filled up due to the ban order issued by the government. Since, the petitioners do not have the necessary seniority, contrary to their claims, they had not been promoted to the cadre of assistant manager. 11. It has been further stated that 22 vacancies in the post of Assistant Manager, in the technical category, had been filled up by way of promotions, from the existing Assistant Engineers in Salem and Dharmapuri regions, according to the 3:1 ratio. Further, in the actual seniority list prepared in the category of Assistant Engineer, during the year, 2001, in the dissolved company, the position of the petitioners are as follows: Sl.No. Name Staff No. Position in Seniority (Over all) Position in Seniority (Graduate) 1 Thiru.K.Rajarajan EA5060 37 13 2 Thiru.N.Kalaivanan EA5062 38 14 3 Thiru.T.Mohankumar EA5052 29 8 4 Thiru.S.A.Selvakumar EA5061 36 12 5 Thiru.P.Tamilarasan EA5063 39 15 As such, the petitioners were not eligible for being promoted to the cadre of Assistant Manager, at the relevant point of time. They cannot pray for being promoted, notionally, with retrospective effect, from the year, 2001. In such circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners on 24.1.2009, it has been stated that the contention raised on behalf of the first respondent Corporation is that Junior Assistant Engineers had been appointed only as Assistant Branch Managers, with the pay scale of Assistant Engineers and not as Assistant Managers, is false. There is no category nown as Assistant Manager, as per the service rules. All postings of Assistant Engineers had been made only to the posts of Assistant Managers, contrary to the service rules applicable to such promotions. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioners are reasonable and valid. 13. There is no category nown as Assistant Manager, as per the service rules. All postings of Assistant Engineers had been made only to the posts of Assistant Managers, contrary to the service rules applicable to such promotions. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioners are reasonable and valid. 13. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on their behalf and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioners, in the present writ petition. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioners to substantiate their claim that they had been agitating the matter regarding the preparation of the common seniority list, from its inception. No proper reasons have been shown by the petitioners for the delay in making its claims. As per the Order S.O.1478(E), dated 30.12.2003, a common seniority list had been prepared, in respect of the resulting company. Further, Government Orders had been issued banning filling up of vacancies arising at the relevant point of time. Further, the petitioners have not been in a position to show that there were sufficient number of vacancies in the Assistant Manager cadre to which the petitioners would have been eligible to be promoted. 14. Even though the promotions made by the respondent Corporation were subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition, it cannot be said that such promotions are arbitrary and illegal in the eye of law. It would not be appropriate for this Court, to set aside the common seniority list, which had been prepared by the first respondent Corporation, in respect of the resulting company and to disturb the settled promotions already made, at this belated stage. 15. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that they would have been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Manager, if the seniority panel had been prepared during the months of April and October, 2001, as per the applicable service rules, cannot be countenanced. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.