Judgment :- 1 The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from effecting any promotion except by preparing a combined seniority list as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.1052 of the Education department, dated 8.11.1991. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument stated that G.O.Ms.No.1052 dated 8.11.1991 has nothing to do with the members of Tamilnadu Government Education department B wing Ministerial Association (Non teaching staff) and is not relevant to the case. 3 In view of this statement, it can be safely said, that this writ petition is nothing but misuse of process of the Court, as the prayer made in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to prepare a combined seniority list as per G.O.Ms.No.1052 Education department, dated 8.11.1991, which admittedly is not applicable to the petitioners. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner however, vehemently contends, that the members of the petitioner Association were appointed as non-teaching staff in the erstwhile District Board Schools in various schools prior to 01.04.1970. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, Tamilnadu State had schools at various levels such has Primary, Middle and High Schools run by the public sector. The State Government thereafter, took over the Panchayat, District board and Government District Board Schools with effect from 13.04.1966. 5 In pursuance to the take over of the schools, the non-teaching staff working in district board schools were absorbed in the Government service in the education department. On absorption, the absorbed teachers and non teaching staff were treated as separate cadre. 6 It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while considering the question of incorporation of two services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1782 dated 17.10.1974, the Government schools were brought under A wing and the other district board schools were brought under B wing, due to the administrative difficulties faced in complete integration. 7 The case of the petitioner is that as the persons falling in cadre B were fulfledged Government servants with effect from 01.04.1970, they were entitled to the same benefits which were available to their counterpart in A wing, and they were doing identical work. 7 The case of the petitioner is that as the persons falling in cadre B were fulfledged Government servants with effect from 01.04.1970, they were entitled to the same benefits which were available to their counterpart in A wing, and they were doing identical work. 8 The Government of Tamilnadu thereafter in consultation with the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, vide G.O.Ms.No.1968 dated 02.11.1978 fixed the ratio of 5 : 3 and 2 : 3 for ministerial staff B wing and teaching staff of A wing, keeping in view the strength of cadre, it was decided to draw seniority list in the ratio of 5 : 3 as on 31.03.1970. 9 Thereafter, at the instance of the some vested interested persons, with a view to prolong the issue in question, filed a writ petition questioning the G.O.Ms.No.1968 dated 02.11.1978. During the pendency of the writ petition, without preparing combined seniority list, A wing cadre personnel were only promoted. The writ petition challenging G.O.Ms.No.1968 dated 02.11.1978, was finally dismissed, and order of this Court was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. 10 The case of the petitioner is that inspite of decision by the Honble Supreme court, the respondents have not come up with the joint seniority list. 11 G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-P) department changing the integration date from 01.04.1970 to 02.11.1978, was challenged being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The challenge was accepted, as the writ petition was allowed. The order passed by this Court was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court also, thereby the date of integration was kept as 01.04.1970. 12 The case of the petitioner is that the non-teaching staff have been excluded in granting relief of seniority/promotion etc., therefore, it is contended that non teaching staff is also to be treated equally with teaching staff. 13 However, neither the facts nor the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, can be of any help to the petitioner, as the prayer made in the writ petition is, for direction to prepare a combined seniority list as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.1052 Education department, dated 8.11.1991, whereas stand of the learned counsel in the Court is that this G.O. has no relevance to the service conditions of the petitioner, nor it is relevant to question raised in the writ petition. 14 As already observed above, the writ petition being nothing but misuse of process of the Court, is ordered to be dismissed, with costs which are assessed as Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only).