Judgment :- 1. The prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order Lr.No.3526/U Special/2001 dated 31.01.2001, with consequential relief of issuance of direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner at par with Thiru M.Padmanaban (Deputy Secretary) with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner, for the reasons best known, has not impleaded Thiru M.Padmanabhan as party to this writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service on 05.08.1974, and promoted as Assistant on 18.03.1984. 3. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Section Officer on 23.05.1991 and reverted to the post of Assistant Section Officer on 31.05.1991. The petitioner was again promoted as Section Officer and subsequently upgraded to the post of Secretary on 24.05.1998. 4. It is submitted, that at the time of selection of petitioner by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, no special qualification was prescribed for induction into the cadre of finance. It was left to the discretion of the State to post the selected persons in different department of the State Government. 5. One Thiru. Muthuvu, who was selected along with petitioner for the post of Junior Assistant, was allotted to the finance department and he was promoted as Assistant in the year 1975 and thereafter Section Officer in October 1985. 6. The grievance of petitioner is, that though Thiru Muthuvu was junior to petitioner, but he was given promotion, being in the finance department. It is submitted, that the petitioner was not considered for promotion, though all employees working in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Services formed a joint cadre upto the post of Assistant Section Officer. 7. The petitioner, being aggrieved by non consideration of the case of petitioner for promotion from due date, filed O.A.No.3851 of 1992, with prayer for issuance of direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner, as Section Officer at par with his junior with all consequential benefits. 8. The Original Application filed by petitioner was partly allowed on 20.01.1995, and the review petition filed against the said order is pending decision. 9. It is the submission of petitioner, that on 24.05.1988, vide G.O.Ms.No.127, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (U.Spl) Department, instructions were issued for upgradation and stepping up of pay of all seniors getting lesser pay with that of their juniors. 9. It is the submission of petitioner, that on 24.05.1988, vide G.O.Ms.No.127, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (U.Spl) Department, instructions were issued for upgradation and stepping up of pay of all seniors getting lesser pay with that of their juniors. The petitioner given benefit of Government instructions and his pay was upgraded at par with his junior Thiru M.Padmanabhan, Under Secretary, Finance unit with effect from 29.05.1998. 10. That on upgradation of petitioner at par with Thiru M.Padmanabhan, he was entitled to be considered for further promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary from the date Thiru M.Padmanabhan was so promoted as Deputy Secretary. 11. It is contended, that promotion was wrongly given to Thiru M.Padmanabhan. The petitioner filed representation against his promotion as Deputy Secretary, but the the representation of petitioner was not decided, the petitioner again filed O.A.No.835 of 2001, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to take decision on the representation filed by petitioner. The representation filed by petitioner stands rejected, in view of undertaking given by petitioner at the time of seeking upgradation of pay at par with junior. 12. Though reason given for rejection of representation of petitioner cannot be said to be a good reason, but these allegations cannot be looked into, as the petitioner has not impleaded Thiru M.Padmanabhan as party respondent to this writ petition. 13. Learned Senior Counsel challenged the impugned order by contending that prior to 1994, the posts of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Services were filled up on the recommendation of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the list of selected candidates were forwarded to Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to allocate different employees to the different department. This rule was amended in 1994, when the cadre of each department was bifurcated. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working in the same cadre as that of Muthuvu, therefore, he was also entitled to promotion at par with him. This contention cannot be accepted firstly for the reason that admittedly junior of petitioner was promoted in the year 1994, the writ petition challenging his promotion in 2002 is highly belated, thus writ suffers from delay and laches. 15. This contention cannot be accepted firstly for the reason that admittedly junior of petitioner was promoted in the year 1994, the writ petition challenging his promotion in 2002 is highly belated, thus writ suffers from delay and laches. 15. It is not in dispute, that now the cadre stands bifurcated, therefore, Thiru M.Padmanabhan, being not in the cadre of petitioner, he has no legal right to claim promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted with all consequential relief. 16. The writ petition is totally misconceived, as it proceeds on the presumption, that the petitioner is senior to Thiru M.Padmanabhan, though admittedly he is not in the cadre of petitioner due to bifurcation of department/cadre. 17. No merits. Dismissed. 18. No costs.