Judgment : 1. This writ petition was filed by Mr.A.Mohanasundaram challenging the impugned proceedings passed by the first respondent, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, Salem in Reference No.1(2)/P&A/4392/2007-2008 dated 08.08.2007, wherein the second respondent-Mr.J.Vairamani was promoted to the post of Supervisor (Electrical) in Shaft Kiln Division (SKD) instead of the petitioner, being senior, who was appointed as Electrician and joined the post on 17.10.85, prior to the appointment of the second respondent, who joined the post of Electrician only on 2.5.87. 2. Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that when the petitioner was appointed as Electrician and joined the post on 17.10.85, the first respondent passed an order confirming his appointment in the permanent vacancy of Electrician (Skilled III) with effect from 17.10.86. While so, when the same respondent called for applications for the post of Supervisor (Electrical) in the Shaft Kiln Division (SKD), on 24.7.2006, without maintaining a combined seniority list for the employees working in both the Shaft Kiln Division and Rotary Kiln Division, as the petitioner was one of the contenders, the second respondent, who was junior to the petitioner, was given promotion to the post of Supervisor (Electrical). It was also further stated that when it is an admitted case that the petitioner joined the first respondent-Management as Electrical Apprentice on 17.10.85 two years prior to the second respondent, since he was given promotion during August, 2002 from the category of Electrician (Skilled II) to Electrician (Skilled I), whereas the second respondent was given promotion only during August, 2006 from the category of Electrician (Skilled II) to Electrician (Skilled I), that is after four years of the promotion of the petitioner and moreover, when the petitioner had put in 22 years of service compared to the second respondent, who had put in 20 years of service, in spite of the above merits possessed by the petitioner, the first respondent-Management should not have denied the promotional post to the petitioner, when the second respondent was appointed as Supervisor (Electrical), ignoring the claim of the petitioner. Further, it was canvassed before this Court that when the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22073 of 2007 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to effect promotion to him for the post of Supervisor (Electrical) by considering the inter-se seniority, this Court having given a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner, the first respondent-Management, without considering the valid request made by the petitioner, erroneously passed the impugned order dated 8.8.2007 on the ground that the petitioner's claim of maintaining a common seniority list for Electricians working in both the Shaft Kiln and Rotary Kiln Divisions and their mutual transfer from one division to another is totally contrary to the facts on record. Finally, it was pleaded that the first respondent-Management, being a public sector undertaking, cannot ignore the superior claim of the petitioner while promoting the second respondent, who is two years junior to the petitioner in the post of Electrician. On this basis, he prayed for interference with the impugned order. 3. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed by both the first and second respondents. 4. In support of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that although both the petitioner and the second respondent were working in two divisions viz., Shaft Kiln Division and Rotary Kiln Division, both the divisions are totally different. Therefore, a separate seniority list is also being maintained in both the divisions. In the Shaft Kiln Division, the second respondent's name is shown in Serial No.1. In view of that, when the promotional post fell vacant, the first respondent, considering two vital aspects that the second respondent is shown in Serial No.1 in the seniority list maintained for Shaft Kiln Division and also for the reason that he has obtained the 'C' licence in the year 1994, considering the comparative merits of the parties, promoted the second respondent to the post of Supervisor (Electrical). The comparative merits of both the petitioner and the second respondent clearly shows that the second respondent is far superior to the petitioner. The comparative merits of both the petitioner and the second respondent clearly shows that the second respondent is far superior to the petitioner. The reason being that it is not the case of the petitioner that the second respondent was promoted to the Rotary Kiln Division, wherein the petitioner is considered as senior and shown in Serial No.2, whereas the promotional post viz., Supervisor (Electrical) fell vacant in the Shaft Kiln Division, wherein the name of the second respondent is shown in Serial No.1 in the seniority list and in addition to the seniority list, the second respondent had also obtained the 'C' licence No.C-19206 on 30.9.94, therefore, the first respondent, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had obtained the 'C' licence only in the year 2007, rightly, considering the case of both sides, rejected the claim of the petitioner, accordingly, prayed for no interference in the impugned order. 5. This Court, fully agreeing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent, is unable to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner. First of all, the promotional post of Supervisor (Electrical) fell vacant on 24.07.2006 in the Shaft Kiln Division. At the time when the promotional post came to exist, the second respondent was shown in Serial No.1 in the seniority list maintained for Shaft Kiln Division. Secondly, the second respondent had also obtained the 'C' licence No.C-19206 on 30.9.94, whereas the petitioner had obtained the 'C' licence No.C-35833 only on 20.11.2007. Thirdly, he had been shown in Serial No.2 in the seniority list maintained for Rotary Kiln Division. When separate seniority list is being maintained for both the Shaft Kiln Division and Rotary Kiln Division, the petitioner cannot claim that he is senior to the second respondent, although he joined the post of Electrician in Rotary Kiln Division on 17.10.85. Therefore, this Court, finding no merits in the writ petition, upholding the impugned order, dismisses this writ petition. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2008 is also dismissed. No order as to costs.