Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Higher Grade Teacher and joined duty on 27.07.1968. The petitioner was subsequently absorbed as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 01.01.1971. The petitioner possessed the qualification of M.A., M.L., M.Phil degree. The petitioner was thereafter, promoted as Elementary School Headmistress, Panchayat Union Elementary School, Vathalagoundan Valasu, vide order Pro.Na.Ka.20751/89/B1 dated 07.03.1990. The petitioner then promoted as Tamil Pandit w.e.f. 01.06.1991. 2. The petitioner submits that she is eligible for being promoted as Middle School Headmistress by virtue of her seniority, but she was ignored, whereas her juniors have been promoted. The juniors of the petitioner are stated to have retired on 31.08.2001. 3. The submission of the petitioner is that the Government issued instructions that the post of Headmistress of Middle School is to be filled up by promotion of B.T. Assistant, Tamil Pandit appointed prior to 01.06.1998, and in case, no qualified person is available, then to be filled up the post from senior most i) B.Ed. Grade teachers appointed in the Middle School; ii) Tamil Pandits appointed in the Middle Schools; iii) Primary School H.M. qualified for B.Ed. or Tamil Pandit 4. The combined seniority list was issued by the department wherein the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.4 of the list, whereas name of the A.Meharunnisa was placed below the petitioner. 5. The case of the petitioner is that she was exposed to grave hardship and agony, on coming to know that juniors to the petitioner have been promoted as Middle School Headmistress, overlooking the seniority of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, on coming to know about the promotion of junior, immediately filed a representation with the respondents which was rejected vide impugned order by stating that in future, the promotion shall be made as per the seniority. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as it is non speaking order and is also in violation of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules. The order does not disclose any reason for non inclusion of name of the petitioner in the panel. 7. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. 8. For the reasons best known, the petitioner did not challenge the promotion of her junior, on the ground that the case of the petitioner was not considered. The order does not disclose any reason for non inclusion of name of the petitioner in the panel. 7. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. 8. For the reasons best known, the petitioner did not challenge the promotion of her junior, on the ground that the case of the petitioner was not considered. The averments rather shows that the petitioner was satisfied with the promotion of the junior and chose to wait till junior attained the age of superannuation. 9. In absence of challenge to the promotion of the junior, it is not open to the petitioner to claim promotion from the due date, i.e. from the date of her junior promoted. 10. The petitioner also cannot have any grievance on the impugned order as it held that in future, promotion will be made as per the seniority as was claimed by the petitioner. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.