Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this writ petition is challenging the seniority list, dated 06.12.2007 issued by the first respondent and consequently, seeking for a direction, directing the second respondent to prepare a new seniority list pursuant to 31.10.2007 seniority list. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he passed 10th Std. and got his name registering at the District Employment Office at Pudukkottai on 18.08.1997. The said registration was also periodically renewed. During the year 2006, the first respondent called for employment seniority list from the second respondent to give appointment to the post of cook at the welfare schools. The second respondent sent a list on 31.07.2007 containing the name of 34 persons. In the said list, the petitioner was placed at 10th rank. Thereafter, the first respondent called for interview and gave appointment to the first 3 persons in the seniority list. However, when a list was subsequently sent in the year 2007 for the very same post, the petitioner's name was placed in the 39th rank. Therefore, the first respondent gave appointment only to persons in serial No.1, 6 and 8 in the seniority list. Aggrieved against placing the petitioner in the 39th place in the seniority list prepared on 20.11.2006, the present writ petition is filed before this court. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a separate counter affidavits. 4. The first respondent stated that he called for list of candidates from the second respondent for filling up the vacancies of Assistant Cook during the year 2006. The second respondent sent a list of candidates, in which the petitioner was placed at the 10th rank. After conducting interview, the first respondent appointed 3 candidates as per seniority. On 21.02.2007, another list was called for to appoint further 3 Assistant Cooks. The second respondent furnished the list containing 85 candidates name, in which the petitioner's name was placed in serial No.39. After conducting an interview, the first respondent gave appointment to the senior most three candidates at serial 1, 6 and 8. Therefore, the petitioner was not selected. 5. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that whenever cook vacancies are notified, the candidates who are able to read and write with cooking experience or without cooking experience are simultaneously sponsored together as per the guidelines and instructions given by the Commissioner of Employment & Training, Chennai. Therefore, the petitioner was not selected. 5. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that whenever cook vacancies are notified, the candidates who are able to read and write with cooking experience or without cooking experience are simultaneously sponsored together as per the guidelines and instructions given by the Commissioner of Employment & Training, Chennai. Therefore, when both the cooking experience and non cooking experience candidates are sponsored with 'inter see seniority', the petitioner had been placed at 39th place. It is also the further admission by the second respondent that when a previous list was sent, the candidates, who are able to read and write and with cooking experience alone were sponsored, in which the petitioner's name was found in serial No.10. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents. 7. The claim of the petitioner is that he passed 10th Std. and got his name registered with the Employment Exchange and that his name was also sponsored during the year 2006 to the post of Cook by placing him in the 10th rank, in the list submitted by the second respondent on 22.05.2006. However subsequently, when another seniority list was sent in the year 2007, the petitioner's name was placed in 39th rank. This, according to the petitioner, is totally illegal and denial of his right to get employment as per the original seniority prepared in the year 2006. The second respondent admitted that when the earlier list was prepared and sent in the year 2006, the petitioner was placed in serial No.10 as he was having cooking experience with a knowledge to read and writ. When that being the position, I fail to understand as to how the second respondent can place the petitioner in No.39th rank, when the list was sent in the year 2007, by stating that both the candidates having cooking experience and non cooking experience were clubbed together and sponsored by taking note of their inter see seniority. This attitude of the second respondent, in my considered view, cannot be justified, especially when the petitioner is better placed than the other persons, who are not having the cooking experience. This attitude of the second respondent, in my considered view, cannot be justified, especially when the petitioner is better placed than the other persons, who are not having the cooking experience. When admittedly the petitioner is having cooking experience with the knowledge of reading and writing, how the petitioner's placement was reduced from the 10th rank to 39th rank is not reasonably explained by the second respondent. At any event, the reasons assigned for placing the petitioner at serial number 39, as could be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent cannot be sustained, in view of the very fact that the very second respondent admit that the petitioner is having cooking experience with the knowledge of reading and writing. When that being the position, the petitioner cannot be denied of his right to be placed in the seniority list in a proper place. 8. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to rework the seniority list and place the petitioner in appropriate place and consequently, to sponsor the name of the petitioner as and when any request is made by the respective authorities for the post of Cook. 9. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.