S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to set aside the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 to 12 from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Deputy Engineer in supersession to the petitioner, to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to promote the petitioner to the rank and post of the deputy Engineer on and from July, 1991 and to restrain respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from promoting the petitioner's juniors to the said post of Deputy Engineer.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development authority, Bombay. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Chief Officer and Deputy engineer of respondent No. 1 respectively.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, a graduate Engineer, joined the services of respondent no. 1 on 6th April, 1981 as a Junior Engineer on probation of one year. He was posted to the office of the Executive Engineer, redesignated as an Assistant engineer with effect from 6th April, 1981 by an order dated 18th February, 1987 and placed under the appropriate revised pay scale. According to the petitioner though he was re-designated as an Assistant Engineer, he was addressed by the respondent as, junior Engineer. The petitioner was thereafter transferred and posted to the office of the Executive Engineer of the third respondent.

( 4 ) THE petitioner's case is that though he worked honestly and diligently, he was not made permanent and that he was harassed by the officers of respondent No. 1 who continuously issued various memos finding fault with his work. The petitioner states that a series of memos containing allegations and threats of disciplinary action were issued to him. For the purpose of this petitioner, it is not necessary to consider these allegations. The refusal to promote the petitioner is supported on the basis of certain circulars which we shall shortly refer to.

( 5 ) ON 11th October, 1989, respondent No. 1 prepared a promotion/seniority list of the Junior Engineers for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy engineer. Fifteen candidates were selected for promotion. The petitioner's claim for promotion was however disregarded. Though he was admittedly senior and allegedly held a higher qualification i. e. a degree in Civil Engineering as opposed to a diploma, the petitioner was superseded by his juniors. The petitioner made representation against the same.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER on 3rd July, 1990, the respondents published a seniority list of graduates who are diploma holders and holders of certificate of completion of the course in Architecture. The petitioner was shown at serial No. 2 therein. The aforesaid order was circulated amongst the various authorities. The petitioner has alleged that despite the same, on 9th July, 1991 a promotion order is issued by the first respondent by which twenty employees were promoted to the post of deputy Engineer. The petitioner however was not promoted to the said post. Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 are also graduate Engineers. All of them are junior to the petitioner. The seniority list published on 3rd July, 1990 was on the basis of the date of joining and qualifications of the employees.

( 7 ) THE petitioner filed the above petition on 22nd November, 1991 alleging that the respondents had decided once again to promote the employees whose names were shown in the seniority list dated 3rd July, 1990 and that his name was once again not considered for promotion.

( 8 ) THE petitioner's case is that he is senior to respondent Nos. 4 to 12 and that the promotion to the said post of Deputy Engineer was to be purely on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and that therefore in the absence of any adverse remarks against him, he was entitled to be promoted before all those who were junior to him.

( 9 ) THE petitioner's claim for consideration for promotion is not sustainable. It is based on an incorrect presumption that the post is purely on seniority-cum-merit in the sense that once it is determined that the petitioner is senior to his colleagues, he is bound