Judgment Narasimham, C.J. The petitioner is an employee of the Eastern Railway in the clerical grade. There are three grades of clerks in the Railway, viz., (1) Grade III in the scale of Rs.60-130, (2) Grade II in the scale of Rs.110-180, and Grade I in the scale of Rs.130-300. The petitioner was first appointed in Grade III on the 4th February, 1958, and posted to Dinapore but was subsequently transferred to the office of the Assistant Engineer at Dehri-on-Sone where he has been working since then. He was promoted to Grade II on the 1st July, 1959, and confirmed in that grade on the 27th May, 1966, with retrospective effect from the 1st April, 1964 (Annexure A). 2. The promotion from Grade II to Grade I was formerly made by (1) direct recruitment of graduates (known as the graduate quota) to the extent of 20 percent of the vacancies, and (2) promotion from lower ranks to the extent of 80 percent of the vacancies. But, on the 6th July, 1961, it was decided by the Railway Board, accepting the recommendation of the Pay Commission, that direct recruitment to Grade I should be stopped altogether, and that 10 percent of the vacancies should be filled up by competitive examination limited to clerks of Grade II only (Annexure 0). The remaining 90 percent of the vacancies were reserved for promotion from Grade II on the basis of seniority cum suitability. Though the letter was issued on the 6th July, 1961, it was clearly stated in Paragraph 4 that this decision "would not affect employees already promoted as clerks Grade I against 20 percent vacancies reserved for being filled by direct recruitment". On the 9th November, 1962, another letter was issued (Annexure P-1) to all concerned, stating that, if any vacancies remained in Grade I unfilled, recruitment should be made on the basis of the new instructions, viz. 10 percent by competitive examination and 90 percent by promotion. On the 14th March, 1963, another letter (Annexure P and Annexure 3) was issued, in which, by way of clarification, it was stated that those vacancies in Grade I which were formerly reserved for graduates (20 percent) existing during the period from the 1st April, 1956, to the 5th July, 1961, also should be filled by following the new instructions. On the 14th March, 1963, another letter (Annexure P and Annexure 3) was issued, in which, by way of clarification, it was stated that those vacancies in Grade I which were formerly reserved for graduates (20 percent) existing during the period from the 1st April, 1956, to the 5th July, 1961, also should be filled by following the new instructions. But these letters of clarification do not affect the decision given on the 6th July, 1961, in Paragraph 4 (Annexure 0) to the effect that the new instructions will not affect the employees already promoted as Grade I clerks against 20 percent graduate vacancies. 3. On the 28th April, 1966, intimation was given to all concerned about the holding of a competitive examination amongst Grade II clerks for promotion to Grade I in the ten percent vacancies (Annexure B); but it was clearly stated therein : "Such of them as are declared successful will be promoted according to merit against the vacancies in Grade Rs.130-300 (AS) wherever available whether in their own or other seniority units". By this notice, therefore, it was made absolutely clear to the intending competitors that, even if they come out successful in the examination they cannot claim to be promoted in Grade I in their existing units. The competitive examination was actually held on the 30th July, 1966, in which the petitioner also competed. Nineteen persons were declared successful (Annexure C), and the petitioner secured the 8th place. While issuing posting orders (office order no. 510 of 1967), however, the Divisional Superintendent of Dinapore ordered the posting of the petitioner as Grade I clerk to Mughalsarai Traction Department; but three candidates, who secured the 7th, 9th and 11th place in the examination, were promoted to Grade I in their own Civil Engineering Group. So far as the 7th candidate was concerned, the petitioner could not make a grievance because his rank was higher than that of the petitioner in the examination but he felt aggrieved that the candidates who secured the 9th and 11th places, below his own rank, should have been promoted and retained in the Civil Engineering Group, whereas he should have been transferred (though on promotion) to a different department known as Traction Department at Mughalsarai. Representation was made, and, presumably, with a view to redress this grievance, the Divisional Superintendent, Dinapore, slightly modified the previous order of posting, and kept in the Civil Engineering Group only those candidates who secured the 2nd, 5th and 6th places in the examination (Annexure H). As the ranks of these three candidates were higher than the rank of the petitioner in the competitive examination, he could not make a grievance if they were retained in the Civil Engineering Group, and he was transferred to another Department. 4. The petitioner was an office-bearer of the Eastern Railwaymen's Union at Dehri-on-Sone, being the Vice-president of the Union. The Railway had accepted the principle that Trade Union office-bearer should not be transferred without prior agreement amongst all concerned (Annexure G); but this principle was subject to one important exception, viz., where the transfer was by way of promotion, agreement was not required, but mere intimation of the proposed transfer should be given to the union concerned. This was made clear in the Eastern Railway Letter No. E. 1160/16/TU, dated the 30th October, 1964 (Annexure 2), forwarding a copy of Railway Board's Letter No. E (L) 64 UTI-113, dated the 6th October, 1964. The Union, through its President, Shri Y.P. Singh, repeatedly pressed for the cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner to the Traction Department at Mughalsarai and his retention at Dehri-on-Sone as Grade I clerk. It seems there was a controversy between the parties as to whether, apart from the three vacancies in the Civil Engineering Group, which were filled by appointing candidates who secured the 2nd, 5th and 6th places in the competitive examination, there were two more vacancies in the same Engineering Group. The petitioner and his Union were contending that there were at least two more vacancies on the ground that, between the 2nd April, 1956, and the 28th April, 1966, there were 47 vacancies in the first grade, and, as 10 percent of the vacancies were reserved for candidates who passed the competitive test, the number available would be 4.70 posts. The Divisional Superintendent of Dinapore, informed the Union (See Annexure J) that two of the said five vacancies were already filled up. The Divisional Superintendent of Dinapore, informed the Union (See Annexure J) that two of the said five vacancies were already filled up. To quote his own words : "Two posts in grade Rs.130-300/- in the clerical cadre of the Engineering Department were already filled up by direct recruits against 20% graduate quota leaving a balance of 2.7 posts, i.e., 3 posts to be filled up by selection from amongst Grade II clerks of Engineering Department which has since been done." It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the filling up of two posts by ranking up the old rule about graduate quota was not justified, and that it was done mala fide with a view to prevent the petitioner from 'remaining in the same Engineering Group. This writ has been filed for quashing that portion of the order of the Divisional Superintendent, Dinapore (Office Order No. 510 of 1967), transferring the petitioner from the Assistant Engineer's office at Dehri-on-Sone to the office of the Traction Department at Mughalsarai on promotion as a clerk Grade I, and his retention in the Civil Engineering Group as a clerk in Grade I. 5. The first question for consideration is whether an employee of the Railway has any justiciable right to be retained in a particular place. Mr. Bose for the Railway invited our attention to Rules 146 and 147 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, 1959 Edition, which may be quoted below: 6. "Transfers. - Ordinarily, a railway servant shall be employed throughout his service on the railway or railway establishment to which he is posted on first appointment and shall have no claim as of right for transfer to another railway or railway establishment. In the exigencies of service, however, it shall be open to the President to transfer the railway servant to any other department or railway or railway establishment including a project in or out of India. In regard to non-gazetted railway servants, the power of the President under this rule, in respect of transfer within India, may be exercised by an Agent or by a lower authority to whom the Agent may re-delegate his power. 7. "Persons employed in one department shall not be eligible for employment in another, except with the previous consent of the head of the department in which they are employed. 7. "Persons employed in one department shall not be eligible for employment in another, except with the previous consent of the head of the department in which they are employed. Without such prior consent the head of an office or department shall not employ a person, either temporarily or permanently, if he knows or has reasons to believe that such person belongs to another establishment under Government. A railway servant who takes up the new employment without the consent of the head of department commits a breach of discipline and is liable to be punished". These rules seem to indicate that, within the railway a railway servant can be posted anywhere; but, when persons in one department are required to be posted to another department, the previous consent of the head of the department is required. It is not stated in the application that, when the order of transfer of the petitioner from the Civil Engineering Group to the Traction Department was made, the consent of the head of the Traction Department was not obtained. Hence, there is no question of contravention of Rule 147 of the said Code. It is true that the petitioner was entitled to promotion because he passed the competitive test but, as the order of transfer is as clerk Grade I, he cannot possibly have a grievance on this score. Mr. Ghose for the petitioner, however, urged that the following passage in the notice about the competitive examination indicated that, if vacancies were available in the Civil Engineering Group of Grade I clerks, the petitioner was entitled to be retained in the same group instead of being transferred elsewhere: "Such of them as are declared successful will be promoted according to merit against the vacancies in grade Rs.130-300/- (AS) wherever available". In my opinion, the words "wherever available" in the said passage cannot be construed in that limited manner. They give complete freedom to the railway authorities to transfer the successful candidates to any place in the same railway where vacancies in the posts of Grade I clerks are available. Transfers of staff are made in the exigencies of service, and the authority concerned must have wide discretion in issuing posting orders. 6. They give complete freedom to the railway authorities to transfer the successful candidates to any place in the same railway where vacancies in the posts of Grade I clerks are available. Transfers of staff are made in the exigencies of service, and the authority concerned must have wide discretion in issuing posting orders. 6. If any candidate, whose rank is below that of the petitioner, is retained in the Civil Engineering Group, the petitioner may have a legitimate grievance; but this grievance, which originally existed, was removed by cancelling the previous order and retaining in the Civil Engineering Group only those candidates who secured the 2nd, 5th and 6th places (See Annexure H). It is true that the Assistant Engineer, Dehri-on-Sone, who is the immediate superior of the petitioner, seems to be very much impressed with his work, and has written a strong note, recommending his retention at Dehri-on-Sone; but the Divisional Superintendent Dinapore, must be given wide discretion in these matters. Merely because he was not prepared to accept the suggestion of the Assistant Engineer, Dehri-on-Sone, no justiciable right can accrue to the petitioner. 7. It was then urged that the transfer was by way of victimisation mainly because the petitioner as the Vice-President of the union at Dehri-on-Sone had incurred the animosity of the superior authorities at Dinapore. This allegation of victimisation has not been established by any evidence worth the name. Merely because the Vice-President of the union was transferred on promotion to another department at Mughalsarai, this Court cannot jump to the conclusion that the transfer was by way of victimisation. It is true that the rules and instructions of the Railway Board require that normally (see Annexure G) Trade Union office-bearers should not be transferred without prior agreement; but, from Annexure 2, already referred to, it has been made clear that, where the transfer is by way of promotion, prior agreement is not necessary, and it will suffice if the union is informed about the proposed transfer. Mr. Ghose for the petitioner contended that even this circular of the Railway Board was not fully implemented, and that the union was not informed of the proposed transfer of the petitioner prior to the issue of transfer order. Mr. Ghose for the petitioner contended that even this circular of the Railway Board was not fully implemented, and that the union was not informed of the proposed transfer of the petitioner prior to the issue of transfer order. Assuming that prior intimation was not given to the union, such omission, in the circumstances, must be held to be a mere irregularity, which will not render the transfer order invalid. As soon as the transfer order was passed on the 18th March, 1967, the Assistant Engineer, Dehri-on-Sone, by his two letters, dated the 21st March, 1967, and the 28th March, 1967 (Annexures E and F), moved the superior authorities to cancel the petitioner's transfer order to Mughalsarai. The union also, by its letter, dated the 21st March, 1967, (Annexure F-1), moved in the same direction. There was some correspondence on the subject, and, ultimately, the railway authorities informed the union by their letter dated the 13th July, 1967, about the circumstances under which the transfer took place, and pointed out how there were no vacancies of Grade I clerks in the Engineering Department where the petitioner could be fitted in. To this letter, the union sent another representation (Annexure K) on the 26th July, 1967, and the railway authorities (Divisional Superintendent, Dinapore) sent a reply to that letter also (Annexure L). Thus, omission to give to the union prior intimation of the transfer was fully cured by giving due consideration to the various representations made against the transfer, both by the Assistant Engineer, Dehri-on-Sone, and by the union officials. No other materials has been produced on record to show that there was any mala fide motive on the part of the Divisional Superintendent, Dinapore, in shifting the petitioner from Dehri-on-Sone to Mughalsarai. 8. Mr. Ghose urged that, by filling up two of the posts in Grade I from graduate quota (mentioned in Paragraph 4 of this judgment) the Divisional Superintendent, Dinapore, followed the carry forward principle which, according to Mr. Ghose, was declared invalid by the Supreme Court. The necessary data in support of this argument has not been given. From Annexure J (quoted in Paragraph 4), it is clear that there were five posts for candidates who passed the competitive test arising out of the 47 vacancies in the first grade between the 2nd April, 1956, and the 28th April, 1966. The necessary data in support of this argument has not been given. From Annexure J (quoted in Paragraph 4), it is clear that there were five posts for candidates who passed the competitive test arising out of the 47 vacancies in the first grade between the 2nd April, 1956, and the 28th April, 1966. Two of these posts (according to the Divisional Superintendent) were filled by direct recruits against 20 percent graduate quota which, as pointed out in Paragraph 2, was the mode of recruitment in force formerly. Mr. Ghose urged that, though this graduate quota was abolished as early as the 6th July, 1961 (Annexure 0), nevertheless, by following the principle of carry forward, the railway authorities filled up these two posts from the graduate quota long after that date. But the exact date, on which these two posts were filled from the graduate quota, is not on the record. The Railway Board's letter (Annexure 0), on which Mr. Ghose has relied, itself shows in Paragraph 4 : "These orders do not affect the employees already promoted as clerks Grade I against the 20% vacancies reserved for being filled by direct recruitment". Unless it could be further established that the Divisional Superintendent filled up these two posts after the issue of the circular (Annexure 0), dated the 6th July, 1961, his action cannot be challenged as amounting to contravention of the aforesaid circular. The exact date, on which those two posts were filled by direct recruitment of graduates, is not known. The passage in the letter of the Divisional Superintendent, Dinapore, quoted in Annexure J, viz., "two posts in grade Rs.130-300/- in the clerical cadre of the Engineering Department were already filled up by direct recruits against 20% graduate quota" might as well refer to the filling up of the posts prior to 1961. On the materials on record, therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ghose that these two posts were filled from the graduate quota long after that quota had been abolished, and the new rules for recruitment, viz. 10 percent by competitive examination limited to clerks of Grade II and 90 percent by promotion from Grade II clerks, had come into force. 9. For these reasons, I see no invalidity in the order of transfer of the petitioner on promotion as Grade I clerk in the Traction Department at Mughalsarai. 10 percent by competitive examination limited to clerks of Grade II and 90 percent by promotion from Grade II clerks, had come into force. 9. For these reasons, I see no invalidity in the order of transfer of the petitioner on promotion as Grade I clerk in the Traction Department at Mughalsarai. The application is dismissed with costs hearing fee Rs.100/-. Petition dismissed