The petitioner is working as Electrician in the Engineering Unit of Mahatma Gandhi University (hereinafter referred to as "University"). The third respondent is working as Overseer Grade II (Electrical) in the Engineering Unit of the University.

.2. Thedispute involved in this Writ Petition centers round the method by which the promotion to the post of Overseer Grade I (Electrical) should be made. As per Ext.P1 order dated 6.1999 issued by the University, ratio of 1:1 was provided for promotion from among Overseers Grade II(Electrical) and Electricians. The relevant portion of Ext.P1 order reads as follows:-

."This office consequent to the decision of the Syndicate vide paper (1) read above, created 3 posts of Grade I Overseers (Electrical) to be filled by promotion from among Overseers Grade II (Electrical) and Electricians in the ratio of 1:1 on the basis of seniority."

.3. It is an admitted case that in the year 1999, for the purpose of filling up the three posts of Overseers Grade I (Electrical), no one from among the category of Overseer Grade II(Electrical) was available and the three posts were filled up by promoting Electricians. It is also an admitted case and it is clear from Ext.P3 provisional seniority list that on 20.1.2005, one Shri Pratap P.Thankappan was promoted as Overseer Grade I (Electrical) while working as Overseer Grade II (Electrical). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this was following the ratio as provided in Ext.P1 University Order dated 6.1999. Now a vacancy of Overseer Grade I (Electrical) exists. According to the petitioner, that vacancy is to be filled up from among the Electricians; and admittedly the petitioner being the senior-most Electrician, he is entitled to be promoted as Overseer Grade I (Electrical). According to the third respondent, the ratio is to be decided not on the basis of the vacancies to be filled up for the present, but on the basis of the cadre strength. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that three Electricians having been promoted in the year 1999 as Overseer Grade I (Electrical), the vacancy which exists now is to be filled up by promoting an Overseer Grade II (Electrical) and not by promoting an Electrician. If an Overseer Grade II (Electrical) is to be promoted as contended by the third respondent, he should get the promotion as he is the senior-most person in that category. On a representation made by the petitioner on 9.4.2007 to the University, the University issued Ext.P6 memo dated 16.2007 which reads as follows:-

."With reference to the subject cited, Sri. Ravindran, K., Electrician is informed that the Legal Advisor, Mahatma Gandhi University has clarified that the promotion to the post of Overseer Grade I should be made as per the existing U.O. In this regard cited (1) above. As per this U.O., the posts of Overseer Grade I (Electrical) are to be filled by promotion from among Overseer Grade II and electrician in the ratio 1:1 on the basis of seniority. Three Electricians and one Overseer Grade II (Electrical) were promoted as Overseer Grade I (Electrical) till date. So the next vacancies in the post of Overseer Grade I (Electrical) must be filled by promoting the eligible Overseer Grade II (Electrical) till the post of Overseer Grade II (Electrical) attain the strength for maintaining the ratio as per the U.O. Cited (1) above."

4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the ratio 1:1 was fixed by the Syndicate not for the purpose of appointment, but for promotion as Overseer Grade I (Electrical) from among Overseers Grade II (Electrical) and Electricians. It is also stated that Shri Pratap P. Thankappan was appointed following the ratio 1:1 as mentioned in Ext.P1 University Order. According to the University, by the appointment of Shri Pratap P. Thankappan, the ratio has not been fully satisfied. It is made clear in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that two more posts of Overse