Order 1. This order shall dispose of W.P.No.5979 & 5980 of 2007, as the common question of fact and law are involved in these two writ petitions. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from W.P.No.5979 of 2007. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade II through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and allotted to Tiruvannamalai district. The respondents 2 to 7 were working in revenue department and were found surplus in their parent department therefore, were transferred to Rural Welfare department in Tiruvannamalai district during the year 1997 1998. 3. It is submission of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 by giving them benefit of past service, to respondents 2 to 7 placed them senior to the petitioners, and thereafter, based on the erroneous seniority list dated 31.08.1992, promoted them to the post of Rural Welfare Officer Grade II/Assistant. 4. The petitioners filed representation against fixing seniority of the respondents 2 to 7 over and above the petitioner. The mistake in seniority list dated 31.08.1992 was rectified and the modified seniority list was circulated on 26.03.1996. 5. However, in the seniority list in the cadre of Rural Welfare Officer Grade I/ Assistant published on 28.03.2001, the respondents 2 to 7 were shown senior to the petitioners, by virtue of their earlier promotion as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I/Assistant. 6. The petitioner again filed representation with the respondent No.1, for refixation of their seniority based on the date of appointment in the Rural Welfare Development vis-a-vis respondents 2 to 7. The petitioners were also promoted as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I/Assistant but, subsequent to promotion of the respondents 2 to 7. 7. The submission of the petitioner is, that the representation for refixation of seniority on the promoted post was decided that panel for promotion to the post of Extension Officer was prepared in which the respondents 2 to 7 were included on the basis of their seniority as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I/Assistant and promoted on 21.01.2002. 8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the promotion of the respondents 2 to 7, has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the promotion of respondents 2 to 7, and consider the petitioner for promotion by treating them to be senior to respondents 2 to 7. 9. 8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the promotion of the respondents 2 to 7, has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the promotion of respondents 2 to 7, and consider the petitioner for promotion by treating them to be senior to respondents 2 to 7. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the promotion of the respondents 2 to 7 cannot be sustained in law, as the claim of the petitioners was not considered though admittedly, they were senior as Junior Assistant. The promotion of the respondents 2 to 7 as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I/Assistant therefore was wrong being based on wrong seniority list which could not give them right of seniority over and above the petitioners. 10. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that once seniority of the respondents 2 to 7 was corrected by rectifying the earlier mistake of reckoning their seniority from the date of their initial appointment in revenue department, respondents 2 to 7 could be treated as senior to the petitioner on the post of Rural Welfare Officer Grade I/Assistant, to defeat the right of promotion to the petitioner, as Extension Officer. The impugned order of promotion of the respondents 2 to 7 therefore, deserves to be set aside. 11. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. It was for the petitioner to approached this Court for promotion at the time when the seniority list was corrected by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 26.03.1996 and having not done so, the petitioner accepted the promotion on later date. The petitioner cannot challenge the promotion of the respondents 2 to 7 at this belated stage, as admittedly, the respondents 2 to 7 were promoted as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I/Assistant prior to 26.03.1996, whereas this writ petition has been filed in the year 2002 i.e. after six years of promotion. The petitioner also did not claim retrospective promotion to claim seniority over and above the respondents 2 to 7 on the promoted post. 12. Rule of seniority is based on continuous length of service on a post. It is not the case of the petitioner that the seniority of the respondents 2 to 7 on the promoted post was also set aside. 12. Rule of seniority is based on continuous length of service on a post. It is not the case of the petitioner that the seniority of the respondents 2 to 7 on the promoted post was also set aside. Therefore, in view of the fact that the respondents 2 to 7 were prior to the petitioner on the post of Rural Welfare Officer Grade I/ Assistant which is the feeder category for further promotion, no ground is made out to interfere with the promotion of the respondents 2 to 7, to the post of Extension Officer. No merit. "Dismissed." No cost.