Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the Respondent No. 1- corporation of illegally promoting/appointing Respondent No. 3 on the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical) vide appointment order dated 1.12.1994. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under:— 2.1 The petitioner is working in the electrical side of the respondent corporation since 1966 from the date of his joining. The petitioner is holding a post of Engineer (Electrical) and this post is a solo post in electrical department, hence the petitioner does not have any seniority problems in his way with reference to the posts falling vacant on electrical side. The petitioner had applied for the post of Dy. Executive Engineer (Electrical) pursuant to circular dated 1.7.1994. The respondent-corporation did not even call the petitioner for an interview and illegally and stealthily appointed the Respondent No. 3 to the said post even though the Respondent No. 3 does not have requisite experience and he being on mechanical side, he has not right to be appointed to the said post. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Raval appearing for the applicant has submitted that the respondent corporation had no authority or powers or any valid reason to ignore the candidature of the petitioner and stealthily appointed Respondent No. 3 in a hurried manner to by pass the claim of the most eligible candidate. He has further submitted that the action of the respondent corporation of not calling the petitioner for interview despite of his proposal through departmental channel is illegal, unjust and improper. Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the Respondent No. 3 is in the seniority list of the mechanical side and not in electrical side, but with a specific intention to appoint the Respondent No. 3 on the post of Dy. Executive Engineer (Electrical), the said circular was issued without mentioning anything with regard to any experience or degree on mechanical/electrical side. He has further submitted that the Respondent No. 3 is junior to the petitioner and his service length is also shorter then the petitioner. Therefore, the order of appointment of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer dated 1.12.1994 is required to be quashed and set aside and the benefit of seniority may given to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Therefore, the order of appointment of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer dated 1.12.1994 is required to be quashed and set aside and the benefit of seniority may given to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the other hand, learned advocates for the respondents have supported the order of the competent authority and have prayed that this petition being merit less, the same may be dismissed. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. From a perusal of the material on record, it transpires that the petitioner, initially, joined his services as ‘Meter Stores & Accounts Supervisor’. Admittedly, the said post is not a technical one. From the record, it also emerges that the post of Deputy Executive Engineer was to be filled up by way of selection and not on the basis of seniority. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having more experience than Respondent No. 3 cannot be accepted. Moreover, as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post in question, the competent authority has rightly not called the petitioner for the interview. Insofar as the selection of Respondent No. 3 is concerned, it has come on record that he has been selected by a selection committee, after following the requisite procedure. It has also come on record that Respondent No. 3 appeared for the interview along with three other candidates and was finally selected, and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the selection of Respondent No. 3 on the post in question is arbitrary and unjust, requires to be rejected. In view of the above discussion, I find no substance in the petitions and the same are dismissed. Rule is discharged.