Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the orders dated 23.05.2001, 04.02.2004 with a consequential relief in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant from the date her junior Sengottaiyan, was promoted with all consequential benefits. 2. The State of Tamil Nadu established a House of Tamil Culture in Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi vide G.O.Ms.No.1648 dated 22.08.1980 issued by the Education Department. The Government was also pleased to sanction one post of Superintendent/Receptionist and one of post of Librarian and one post of Typist. The expenditure of this establishment including salary was directed to be debited to the same head to which the expenditure of staff of Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi was debited. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Typist on 28.02.1983 under Rule 10(a)(i) of General rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules in the scale of Rs.350-600/-. Thereafter, an office order dated 06.07.1987 was issued directing the petitioner to perform the duties of Telex Operator in Tamil Nadu House in the absence of Telex Operator. 4. The case of the petitioner is that posts in House of Tamil Culture and Tamil Nadu House are interchangeable and accordingly, the petitioner was posted as Junior Assistant in the account section of Tamil Nadu House in the pay scale of 610-1075. The services of the petitioner were ordered to be regularised from the date of appointment after the Adhoc Rules rules were issued to regulate the post of Typist in the House of Tamil Culture, Tamil Nadu House. 5. The Resident Commissioner, Tamil Nadu House vide order dated 7.2.1989 addressed to Tamil Nadu Government stating therein, that the three wings in the House of Tamil Nadu, viz., Reception, Liaison and House of Tamil Culture under the control of Resident Commissioner, were treated as one unit for the purpose of recruitment, promotion etc. On availability of vacancies, the members of staff of all the three wings were transferred based on the seniority and experience etc. Letter dated 7.02.1989 recognised that three wings of Tamil Nadu House constituted a common cadre for the purpose of promotion. 6. The post of Typist was treated equivalent to Junior Assistant and in any case, the petitioner was posted as Junior Assistant in the account section of Tamil Nadu House. 7. Letter dated 7.02.1989 recognised that three wings of Tamil Nadu House constituted a common cadre for the purpose of promotion. 6. The post of Typist was treated equivalent to Junior Assistant and in any case, the petitioner was posted as Junior Assistant in the account section of Tamil Nadu House. 7. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.5.1990, the petitioner was posted as Typist cum Telex Operator in Tamil Nadu House in the pay scale of 975-1160 and on 27.08.1991, the petitioner was posted as Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu House by transfer form the post of Typist cum Telex Operator. 8. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.03.1993 of the Joint Commissioner, the service rendered by the petitioner as Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu House was treated as continuous service and she was granted selection grade applicable to the post held by her. In the order, it was clearly stated that her service in Tamil Nadu House was regularised with retrospective effect from 03.03.1983 i.e. day when she joined as Typist. On completion of 10 years of service from the date of initial appointment, the petitioner was granted selection grade in the cadre of Junior Assistant with effect from 03.03.1993. 9. On 03.08.1999, seniority list of Junior Assistants was issued placing the petitioner at Sl.No.4 by showing her date of entry as Junior Assistant on 28.08.1991 i.e. on the date when she was transferred from the post of Typist cum Telex Operator, Tamil Nadu House to the post of Junior Assistant, Tamil Nadu House by ignoring the fact that the post of Typist held by the petitioner, was equivalent post, therefore, the service rendered as Typist was to be counted while preparing the seniority list for the post of Junior Assistant. 10. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order placing the petitioner at Sl.No.4 in the seniority list in the cadre of Junior Assistant, made representation for taking into account, the service rendered by her as Typist in the House of Tamil Culture. 11. By way of impugned order dated 23.05.2001, the petitioner was informed that the service rendered by her in the House of Tamil Culture could not be taken into account and it is only the date of entry into the service of the Tamil Nadu House, could be taken into account. 12. The petitioner again made representation against order dated 23.05.2001. 13. 12. The petitioner again made representation against order dated 23.05.2001. 13. On 04.02.2004, a Seniority cum panel of Junior Assistants as on 03.08.1999 was prepared wherein Tmt. A.Sujakumari was placed at Sl.No.2 and the petitioner was pushed down from Sl.No.4 to 5. On the basis of this panel, Tmt. A.Sujakumari was promoted as Assistant and Tmt.S.Hema who was earlier promoted as Assistant was reverted as Junior Assistant. 14. The case of the petitioner is that Tmt.A.Sujakumari, Thiru K.Sengottaiyan and Tmt.S.Hema are juniors to the petitioner in service in Tamil Nadu House and therefore, the promotion of juniors without considering the case of the senior cannot be sustained. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order by contending that the order rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner against fixation of her seniority is totally arbitrary and amount to colourable exercise of power and therefore, was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are outcome of non application of mind in as much as there is no basis to come to the conclusion that her seniority was counted from the date when she was appointed in Tamil Nadu House. In view of the letter of the Resident Commissioner, clarifying that all the three wings form one cadre. Furthermore, the petitioner was not transferred on her request, but as per exigency of service and therefore, could not be denied benefit of service rendered by her at the House of Tamil Culture, specially when the post of Typist held by her was declared equivalent to Junior Assistant. 17. The impugned orders are also challenged on the ground being arbitrary, being outcome of non application of mind. While granting benefit of selection grade, the service rendered by the petitioner in the House of Tamil Culture was taken into consideration and no reason whatsoever were given to deny the benefit of seniority, in fixing the seniority for the purpose of promotion. 18. The learned counsel for the State in support of the order reiterated the reason given in the impugned order for treating the petitioner Junior to the respondents 3 to 5. 18. The learned counsel for the State in support of the order reiterated the reason given in the impugned order for treating the petitioner Junior to the respondents 3 to 5. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Bio data placed before the selection committee for promotion showed the date of appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant on 03.03.1983. No reason whatsoever have been given as to why the service rendered in the House of Tamil Culture could not be taken for fixing the seniority. 19. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once all the three wings were treated to be one cadre and the posts were treated interchangeable, there was no justification on the part of the respondents to deny the benefit of seniority to the petitioner, specially when, though the petitioner appointed as Typist in the House of Tamil Culture but was transferred on administrative ground, and not on the request of the petitioner. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the petitioner could not be ignored for promotion by treating her to be junior to the respondents 3 to 5, though she was admittedly, senior on the basis of total length of service. 21. For the reasons stated, the order fixing the seniority of the petitioner at Sl.No.4 is ordered to be quashed, with direction to the respondents to refix the seniority by giving benefit of total service rendered by the petitioner including that of Typist in the House of Tamil Culture, Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi. 22. This Court feels that it will not be appropriate at this stage to quash the promotion of the respondents 2 to 5, as the respondents can consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant from the date of her immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits. 23. However, it is made clear that in case, no vacancy for the post of Assistant is available, the respondent No.5 shall be reverted to the post of Junior Assistant, to make place for the petitioner, in case she is found eligible for promotion in accordance with law. No costs.