Judgment: (Per Sri R. Subhash Reddy, J) This writ appeal is ﬁled aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5094 of 2008. 2. The appellant is presently working as Maistry Grade-I (Foreman Class-IV) in A.P.GENCO., at its Hydel Power Station in Nagarjunasagar. The next higher post to that of Maistry Grade-I is Foreman Grade-I. The third respondent was also working as Maistry Grade-I, but, however, he was promoted to the post of Foreman Grade- I. The appellant made a representation seeking promotion on the ground that though he holds I.T.I qualiﬁcation his case was not considered while the case of the third respondent, who is unqualiﬁed, was considered and he was promoted to the post of Foreman Grade-I. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondents, it is stated that respondents are following the A.P. Electricity Department Operation Sub-ordinate Service Rules for the employees working in Hydel Power Stations. It is stated that a separate set of Rules are framed in B.P.Ms.No.54 dated 20.10.1989 for the employees working in Thermal Power Stations. 4. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant as well as the third respondent are working in Hydel Power Stations at Nagarjunasagar. As per the A.P. Electricity Department Operation Sub-ordinate Service Rules, which are being followed for the employees working in Hydel Power Stations, the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I is notiﬁed as “pass in IV Form with ten years of experience only”. As per the said Rules, there is no requirement of a pass in I.T.I. It is also not in dispute that the third respondent is senior to the appellant and was promoted to the post of Foreman Grade-I as much as he was possessing the requisite qualiﬁcation as per the Rules being applied for the said category of employees. 5. In view of the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge and further in view of the averments made in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled in the writ petition, we are also of the view that the promotion of the third respondent is in accordance with the applicable Rules and merely because the appellant possesses I.T.I. qualiﬁcation, he cannot claim any priority over the third respondent. 6. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 19, 2008 GRR/MRR