Judgment Common Order 1. This judgment shall dispose of W.P.No.11618 & 11619 of 2007, as the common question of law and facts are involved. 2. For the sake of brevity, the facts have been taken from W.P.No.11618 of 2007. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the office of Conservator of Forest in the year 1986 and he served as Office Assistant for 14 years. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the post of Forest Guard can also be filled by transfer of Office Assistant and for the purpose of promotion, the post of Forest Guard in each circle, is treated as unit. In the year 2000, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vide order dt.31.07.2000 in compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.924 of 2000 issued instructions, that based on the physical fitness, promotion to the post of Forest Guard could be made. The petitioner also applied for appointment as Forest Guard by transfer. 5. The case of the petitioner is that he participated along with other Office Assistants for appointment as Forest Guard and was placed second. The petitioner also appeared for physical fitness verification test. 6. The second respondent recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment as Forest Guard, but without assigning any reason, and inspite of availability of vacancies, the petitioner was not promoted as Forest Guard. 7. In the year 1998 the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.258 dated 8.5.1998 prescribed educational qualification for promotion to the post of Forest Guard. The said Government order was challenged before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. It was thereafter that direction was issued that promotion can be made on the basis of physical fitness. 8. The case of the petitioners is that steps were being taken to appoint the respondents 3 to 7, as Forest Guard by transfer of service by overlooking the claim of the petitioner, though respondents 3 to 7 are juniors to the petitioner and are working as watchman, but their designation has been wrongly shown as Office Watcher. 9. The non-promotion of the petitioners therefore is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. The writ petitions are opposed by the respondents on the ground that physical verification test was in addition to the qualification prescribed under the rules. 9. The non-promotion of the petitioners therefore is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. The writ petitions are opposed by the respondents on the ground that physical verification test was in addition to the qualification prescribed under the rules. The petitioners did not possess the qualification for appointment by transfer, therefore, they were not found eligible for appointment. 11. It may be noticed here that the respondents 3 to 7 whose appointment has been challenged, are not Office Assistant, but are Forest Watcher whose next channel of promotion is Forest Guard. 12. The post of Office Assistant does not fall in the cadre, the petitioners form a different class from that of respondent No.3 to 7, and therefore, cannot claim equality with them. 13. The claim of the petitioners is only to appointment by transfer, as the post of Office Assistant is not cadre post, from which person can be promoted to the post of Forest Guard. 14. It is well settled law that mere selection cannot give right of appointment, unless it is shown that person lower in merit were appointed in pursuance to the selection. The petitioner has not pleaded or shown if any Office Assistant lower in merit was appointed, nor it is disclosed whether service rules were amended to reserve the post of Forest Guard for appointment by transfer. 15. Otherwise also, positive stand of respondent is that petitioners were not selected, but only subjected to physical verification test. It is not disputed that the petitioners in both the writ did not have requisite qualification prescribed by the Government for appointment by transfer to the post of Forest Guard. Once the petitioners were not selected for want of qualification, they cannot claim appointment by challenging the selection of the respondent No.3 to 7 who form a separate class from that of the petitioners. 16. Consequently, finding no merit, these writ petitions are dismissed.