Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the show cause notice, dated 6.5.2011, and the impugned order, dated 12.5.2011, issued by the first respondent, and to direct the first respondent to maintain the interse seniority of the petitioner, as per the office order, dated 8.4.2003, pursuant to his regularization in service, with effect from 27.3.2000. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been placed below the second respondent in the list of seniority, erroneously, in contravention of the Office Order No.561/2003-1, dated 8.4.2003. It had also been stated that the petitioner, who had already been given the selection grade in the post of steno typist had been appointed as a reporter, and such appointment had been regularised, with effect from 27.3.2000, by way of the office order, dated 8.4.2003, issued by the Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai. 4. It had been further stated that the position of the petitioner in the post of Reporter was in between one P.A. Ramkumar and D. Raguppathi, the second respondent herein. The said position had continued for more than eight years. While so, an office order, dated 17.3.2011, had been issued placing the name of the second respondent above that of the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the said order, by way of a writ petition, in W.P.No.8050 of 2011. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition it had been represented, by the counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, that the impugned order, which contained a number of errors, would be withdrawn. In view of the said submission made on behalf of the first respondent the writ petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed, as infructuous, with liberty to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Even before a copy of the order had been obtained, the first respondent had issued the impugned show cause notice asking him to explain as to why his seniority in the post of reporter should not be fixed, with effect from 28.3.2002. Even before a copy of the order had been obtained, the first respondent had issued the impugned show cause notice asking him to explain as to why his seniority in the post of reporter should not be fixed, with effect from 28.3.2002. The petitioner had been asked to submit his explanation, on or before 10.5.2011. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is unsustainable, either in law or on facts and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. It has been further stated that the petitioner was promoted, as a reporter, with effect from 27.3.2000, without prejudice to his continuance as Junior Personal Assistant to the Minister of Law. The second respondent, along with V. Subramanian, P.A. Ramkumar, N. Subramanian and C. Loganathan had also been promoted, as Reporters, temporarily, due to the exigencies that had arisen to carry on the official works during the assembly session. In the order granting the said promotions it had been clearly stated that the promotions granted to such persons were purely temporary in nature and that they cannot claim any seniority based on the said promotions. During the spell, between 27.3.2000 and 31.5.2000, the petitioner had been shown as a Reporter, along with the other persons, including the second respondent. However, the petitioner had not been selected for promotion, in the subsequent spell with effect from 6.2.2001, when the second respondent, along with some other candidates from other departments had been selected, after passing the selection test. 6. It had been further stated that the petitioner had been re-promoted as a reporter, with effect from 28.3.2002, when the office of the secretariat had taken a decision to give priority to the candidates working in the feeder category of steno typist. Accordingly, the candidates selected from other departments were reverted back to their parent departments. However, the second respondent, who had been appointed from the feeder category of steno typists in the secretariat, as a Reporter, with effect from 6.2.2001, had been retained, as a Reporter, without reversion as Steno Typist and he had been permitted to continue in the said category. However, the second respondent, who had been appointed from the feeder category of steno typists in the secretariat, as a Reporter, with effect from 6.2.2001, had been retained, as a Reporter, without reversion as Steno Typist and he had been permitted to continue in the said category. Later, the services of the petitioner had been regularized in the category of reporter, with effect from 27.3.2000, even though he had not acted as a reporter, as he had been promoted, without prejudice to his appointment as a Junior Personal Assistant to the Minister of Law. The services of the second respondent had also been regularised, with effect from 27.3.2000, and kept below that of the petitioner, as per the seniority in the feeder category, vide office order, dated 8.4.2003. The second respondent had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the same, in Writ petition No.18721 of 2004. He had made a further representation, on 9.10.2009, seeking seniority for the petitioner on the ground of his acting as a reporter during the first spell. He had also pointed out that the petitioner and the other similarly placed candidates had been granted promotions purely on a temporary basis and therefore, such promotions ought not to have been taken into consideration for regularization of their services and for the fixing of their seniority. In such circumstances, the impugned show cause notice had been served on the petitioner, as directed by this Court. Since, the reply submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory revised orders of regularisation and seniority had been issued, by the Legislative Assembly Secretariat, in S.O.Ms.No.49, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, dated 12.5.2011, placing the name of the second respondent over that of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 12.5.2011, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it has been stated that the minimum qualification, to be appointed in the post of reporter, is the passing of Tamil Shorthand High speed, with 120 words per minute. The petitioner has passed the said examination in the month of July, 1997, while the second respondent had passed the said examination in the month of July, 1996, itself. The relevant entry had been made in the service register of the second respondent in the month of November, 1996, after due verification of the certificates. The petitioner has passed the said examination in the month of July, 1997, while the second respondent had passed the said examination in the month of July, 1996, itself. The relevant entry had been made in the service register of the second respondent in the month of November, 1996, after due verification of the certificates. The certificates of the petitioner had been verified and the relevant entry had been made in his service register, only on 11.3.2002. 8. It had been further stated that, when vacancies had arisen in the post of reporter all those persons, including the petitioner, as well as the second respondent, had been appointed as reporters, on a temporary basis, on 27.3.2000, even though some of the persons, including the petitioner, did not possess the required qualification. The promotions had been made, under Rule 17(a)(i) of the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules. The promotions given to such persons were purely temporary in nature and therefore, no claim could be made to the post of reporter, based on such promotions. Further, during the period of the temporary promotions, between 27.3.2000 and 30.5.2000, the second respondent had worked as a reporter in the legislative assembly. However, the petitioner, in the present writ petition, did not join the post of reporter, as he was a junior personal assistant attached to the Minister for Law, during the relevant period. The post of junior personal assistant had not been upgraded to the grade of reporter and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been functioning, as a reporter, during the said period. 9. It had been further stated that the promotions granted on 27.3.2000, were purely temporary in nature and therefore, after the reversion of the temporary promotees, steps had been taken by the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat for filling up the vacancies in the post of reporter, on a regular basis, by conducting a proficiency test. Accordingly, a proficiency test had been held, on 25.1.2001. A number of candidates from various departments had participated in the said test. While the writ petitioner had failed in the test, the second respondent had passed in the said test. Accordingly, a proficiency test had been held, on 25.1.2001. A number of candidates from various departments had participated in the said test. While the writ petitioner had failed in the test, the second respondent had passed in the said test. Thereafter, as per the office order, dated 6.2.2001, the second respondent had been appointed, as a reporter, on a regular basis, and he had joined, as a Tamil reporter, on 6.2.2001, and he has been working in the said post, till date. 10. On the other hand the petitioner was promoted, as a reporter, by an office order, dated 27.3.2002, and he had joined duty on 28.3.2002, on a regular basis, even though he had failed in the proficiency test, held on 25.1.2001. As such, the promotion of the petitioner, on 28.3.2002, is irregular and invalid in the eye of law. Without taking the said facts into account a seniority list had been prepared, erroneously, on 8.4.2003, placing the name of the writ petitioner above that of the second respondent, without any basis or justification. In such circumstances, the second respondent was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.18721 of 2004. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the second respondent had made oral, as well as written representations, setting out the correct facts for the consideration, of the first respondent. As the first respondent had taken up the issue for consideration the writ petition had been withdrawn. Realizing the error committed in the preparation of the seniority list, on 8.4.2003, the first respondent had issued the proceedings, dated 17.3.2011, placing the writ petitioner at Serial No.5 and the second respondent at Serial No.2. However, in the said proceedings the date of regularization in the post of reporter had been shown, as 27.3.2000, for both the petitioner, as well as the second respondent. 11. Even though the placement of the names of the petitioner, as well as the second respondent, in the seniority list was correct, the date of regularization, which was shown as 27.3.2000 was incorrect. Therefore, the writ petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.8050 of 2011, challenging the proceedings, dated 17.3.2011. The said writ petition had been disposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, with regard to the date of regularization. Therefore, the writ petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.8050 of 2011, challenging the proceedings, dated 17.3.2011. The said writ petition had been disposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, with regard to the date of regularization. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued a show cause notice, dated 6.5.2011, asking the writ petitioner to show cause as to why his services, as a reporter, should not be regularized, with effect from 28.3.2002, instead of from 27.3.2000. 12. Similarly, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why his services should not be regularized, with effect from 6.2.2001, the date on which he was regularly promoted after he had passed in the proficiency test, instead of from 27.3.2000, the date on which he had been promoted, as a reporter, temporarily. Thereafter, on considering the explanations submitted by the second respondent and the others the first respondent had issued the proceedings, in S.O.No.49, dated 12.5.2011, fixing the seniority of reporters in the Tamilnadu Legislative Secretariat Services, with reference to the date of regular promotion, namely, 6.2.2001, in respect of the second respondent, and 28.3.2002, in respect of the candidates in Serial numbers 3 to 7, including the petitioner. As such, it is clear that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are devoid of merits and therefore, they are liable to be rejected. The petitioner cannot have any valid reason for challenging the show cause notice, dated 6.5.2011, and the impugned order, dated 12.5.2011, issued by the first respondent. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. 13. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner had been promoted, as a reporter, with effect from 27.3.2000, without prejudice to his continuation in the post of Junior Personal Assistant to the Minister for Law. The second respondent, along with four other persons, had also been promoted, as reporters, temporarily. Such promotions were purely provisional in nature, in order to meet the immediate necessity of covering the assembly sessions held at that time. The second respondent, along with four other persons, had also been promoted, as reporters, temporarily. Such promotions were purely provisional in nature, in order to meet the immediate necessity of covering the assembly sessions held at that time. It had been clearly mentioned, in the order granting the promotions, that such promotions were purely temporary in nature and that the persons, who had been so promoted, cannot claim any seniority. 14. It had also been noted that, after the spell, between 27.3.2000 and 31.5.2000, he had not been shown as a reporter, along with the other persons, including the second respondent, as he had not been selected for promotion, in the subsequent spell, with effect from 6.2.2001. It is also noted that the second respondent had been selected, along with few other candidates from other departments, after passing the selection test. While so, the petitioner had been re-promoted, as a reporter, with effect from 28.3.2002. 15. It is also seen that, while the other persons had been reverted back to their parent departments, the second respondent, who had been appointed, as a reporter, from the feeder category of steno typists in the Secretariat, with effect from 6.2.2001, had been retained. Later, the secretary, having taken into account the first spell of promotion of the petitioner, the second respondent and certain other candidates, as reporters, regularized the service of the petitioner in the category of reporter, with effect from 27.3.2000, though he had not actually acted as a reporter. The promotion was made without prejudice to the appointment as Junior Personal Assistant to the Minster for Law, during the said spell. The services of the second respondent had also been regularized, with effect from 27.3.2000, and he had been kept below the petitioner, as per the seniority in the feeder category, by way of an office order, dated 8.4.2003. The second respondent had made a representation to the Secretary concerned, on 24.3.2003. Thereafter, he had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.18721 of 2004. He had made a further representation, on 9.10.2009, seeking seniority over the petitioner on the ground that the first spell of the petitioner, acting as a reporter, was purely temporary in nature, as indicated in the relevant appointment order and therefore, it need not be taken into consideration for regularisation of his service and for fixing a seniority. 16. He had made a further representation, on 9.10.2009, seeking seniority over the petitioner on the ground that the first spell of the petitioner, acting as a reporter, was purely temporary in nature, as indicated in the relevant appointment order and therefore, it need not be taken into consideration for regularisation of his service and for fixing a seniority. 16. In such circumstances, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, as directed by this Court. As his reply was not satisfactory in nature, revised order of regularisation and seniority had been issued, in S.O.Ms.No.49, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, dated 12.5.2011, placing the second respondent above the petitioner, in seniority. As the services of the petitioner had been rightly regularized in the category of reporter, with effect from 28.3.2002, and that of the second respondent, with effect from 6.2.2001, the seniority of the second respondent has been fixed above that of the petitioner. It is also noted that the first respondent, in his official capacity, as the appointing authority to the category of reporter, as per Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules, read with Appendix1, had issued the show cause notice, as well as the order dated 12.5.2011. It has not been shown by the petitioner that the show cause notice issued by the first respondent, as well as the impugned order, dated 12.5.2011, are arbitrary, illegal and they have been issued by the respondent without having jurisdiction. The decision of the Supreme Court, in State of Haryana Vs. O.P. Gupta (1996) 7 SCC 533 , relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.