ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This writ petition questions the correctness of the seniority list, prepared by the Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, of the incumbents of the post of Train Examiners. It is a Class III Non-Gazetted post. It has two grades: (1) Entry Grade carrying a scale of Rs. 80-160 and (2) a higher grade in the scale of Rs. 150-225. "The petitioner was recruited directly to this post in May, 1956 as an apprentice Train Examiner. He completed his four-year course of apprenticeship, and was appointed to the post of the Train Examiner in May, 1960. The respondents have, after the admission of the present writ petition, published a seniority list in November, 1968, indicating that the principle adopted by them in fixation of seniority was that a direct recruit shall be placed next below the promotees- already appointed before him. In substance, the direct recruits do not get a place in the seniority list on the date of their recruitment, but four years later when, after the completion of the apprenticeship, they are appointed to the post. .The petitioner questions the validity of this approach. 2. Mr. Khare, appearing for the petitioner, raised a two-pronged attack. He relied upon certain orders issued by the Government of India from time to time for the determination of seniority of the staff in Central Services. In the alternative, he relied upon the administrative orders of the Railway Board relating to this subject. 3. 1 On 14th May, 1940, the Home Department of the Government of India issued a circular on the determination of the relative seniority of candidates appointed by direct recruitment and by promotion. Clause (c) of this circular states: "(c). The seniority of candidates appointed to newly created posts or vacancies which are filled partly by promotion or transfer and partly by direct recruitment, i.e., in the Assistants Grade Class I in the Secretariat and the 1st and the 2nd Divisions in the Attached Offices, shall be determined according as, under the rules, the vacancy to be filled by direct recruitment or that to be filled by promotion occurred earlier. For instance, in a department, where two permanent or quasi-permanent vacancies occur even simultaneously in Assistants' grade and the first vacancy is in accordance with the cycle, meant for a direct recruit, the direct recruit will rank in seniority above the departmental candidate (i.e., the candidate appointed by promotion or transfer) even though he joins his post after the departmental candidate has been promoted and confirmed." 4. Then on 22nd December, 1959, the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India issued another Memorandum on the general principles for the determination of seniority of various categories of persons employed in Central Services, The first principle laid down in this Memorandum was that the principles mentioned therein "shall apply to the determination of seniority in Central Services and Civil Posts except such services and posts for which separate principles have already been issued or may be issued hereinafter by the Government or Ministries of Departments". Then the Ministries of Departments were requested to modify their rules to bring them in accord with the principles laid down in this memorandum. The memorandum further stated that whenever it is considered necessary to follow principles different from those laid down in it, specific references should be made to the Ministry of Home Affairs, who will consult the Union Public Service Commission. Paragraph 6 of the Memorandum stated: "The relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the recruitment rules." It, therefore, recognised the rotational system. 5. In my opinion, neither of the two circulars is either relevant or applicable. The Memorandum of 1959 specifically says that the Ministry and Departments can issue separate rules on the question of seniority. So, the Railway Ministry could issue its own rules to govern its employees. This has been done, consequently, the general principles laid down in the Memorandum will not apply. The notification of 14th May, 1940, is also not applicable under clause (c), it applies to "Assistants Grade Class I in the Secretariat and the 1st and the 2nd divisions in the Attached Offices". The post of Train Examiner is admitted to be a Class ' III non-Gazetted post. It will not be covered by this circular. The notification of 14th May, 1940, is also not applicable under clause (c), it applies to "Assistants Grade Class I in the Secretariat and the 1st and the 2nd divisions in the Attached Offices". The post of Train Examiner is admitted to be a Class ' III non-Gazetted post. It will not be covered by this circular. Further, the post of Train Examiner is not a post in the Secretariat. There is no allegation either that it is a post in the 1st and the 2nd divisions of the attached offices of the Government of India. For all these reasons, these two notifications cannot be held to govern the petitioner or the post of Train Examiner. 6. The Railway Board has been, from time to time, issuing orders to govern the determination of seniority list of various posts in the Department. The Indian Railway Establishment Manual (1960 Edition) in Chapter III provides a set of 9 rules. Rule 2 stated that "unless specifically stated otherwise, the seniority among the incumbents of a post in a grade is governed by the date of appointment to the grade ......... " Rule 9 says: "9. Seniority on promotion paragraph 6 above applies equally to seniority in promotion vacancies, due allowance being made for cruotas in promotion if any and delay in joining in the new posts in the exigencies of service. The provisions of paragraphs 7 and 8 will also apply in cases of promotion." Rule 6 stated that the candidates selected for appointment at an earlier selection shall be senior to those selected later irrespective of the dates of posting except in the cases covered by paragraph 5. The Manual states the authority for these rules to be the "Railway Board's Case No. E 56 (Manual) l/III". It appears that the Railway Board had, in that case, framed these directives. In my opinion, Rule 9 will not apply to the petitioner. On terms, it applies to seniority in promotion vacancies, the petitioner was appointed in the Entry Grade. He claims a higher seniority to promotees in this Entry Grade. Rule 9 does not apply to the Entry Grade. To that, Rule 2 would apply, which says that the seniority on a post in a grade is governed by the date of appointment to the grade. This Rule covers appointment in a grade by direct recruitment. He claims a higher seniority to promotees in this Entry Grade. Rule 9 does not apply to the Entry Grade. To that, Rule 2 would apply, which says that the seniority on a post in a grade is governed by the date of appointment to the grade. This Rule covers appointment in a grade by direct recruitment. According to this rule, the petitioner's seniority will count from the date of his appointment, and not from the date of his. selection. This by itself would be enough to repel the petitioner's case. 7. The 1968 Edition of the Railway Establishment Manual treats the matter of determination of seniority by Rule 302. Rule 301 says that ''the Rules contained in this Chapter (namely Chapter III) lay down general principles that may be followed for determining seniority of non-gazetted/ Railway Servants on Railway Administrations". Rule 302 deals with seniority in initial recruitment grades. This will apply to the Entry Grade of Train Examiners. This Rule says: "Unless specifically stated otherwise the seniority among the incumbents of a post in a grade is governed by the date of appointment to the grade. The grant of a higher than initial pay should not, as a rule, confer on a . Railway servant seniority above those who are already appointed against regular posts. In categories of posts partially filled by direct recruitment and partially by promotion, criterion for determination of seniority should be the date of promotion in the case of a promotee and the date of joining the working post in the case of a direct recruit, subject to maintenance of inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits among themselves. When the dates of entry into a grade of promoted Railway servants and direct recruits are the same, they should be put in alternate positions, the promotees being senior to the first direct recruits maintaining inter se seniority of each groups." Rule 309 deals with seniority on promotion. It states that Rule 306 applies equally to seniority in promotion vacancies, due allowance being made for delay, if any, in joining the new posts In exigencies of service. 8. It will thus be seen that Rule 309 is equivalent to the old Rule 9. Rule 302 is a combination of Rule 2 and' a couple of other old Rules. It states that Rule 306 applies equally to seniority in promotion vacancies, due allowance being made for delay, if any, in joining the new posts In exigencies of service. 8. It will thus be seen that Rule 309 is equivalent to the old Rule 9. Rule 302 is a combination of Rule 2 and' a couple of other old Rules. The Railway Establishment Manual makes a clear distinction, and separate provision for the determination of seniority for initial recruitment and for promotion posts. The two provisions cannot be mixed up. The rule relating to promotion posts cannot be held applicable to Entry Grades. The petitioner's case would be governed by Rule 302, and not Rule 309. It will also be seen that the present Rule 309 does not retain the previous provision, namely, that due allowance will be made for quotas in promotion. 9. In 1968 edition of the Railway Establishment Manual, the authority for paragraph 302 as well as paragraph 309 is stated to be "Railway Board's Cases Nos. E 56 (Manual) l/III and E (NG) Manual 62/111". Mr. Khare stressed that the authority is practically the same for both the old and the new Rules. There appears to be some misprinting or mis-drafting. The mention of the cases was defective, and the omission of the quota clause was a case of an oversight. I am unable to agree. The authority is different. Now, there are two authorities. One is Case No. E 56 (Manual) l/III and the other is Case No. E (NG) Manual 62/ III. The Manual clearly refers to "Railway Board's Cases", namely, more than one case. There is no reason to think that there was any misprinting or mis-drafting, or any misunderstanding of the authorities, upon which these paragraphs have been based. 10. The position appears to be that if the old Rules apply, the petitioner's case would be governed by Rule 2, and not Rule 9. If the new Rules apply, then Rule 302, and not Rule 309, would be applicable to the petitioner's case. In either case, the petitioner's seniority would be determinable with reference to the date of his appointment. That is precisely what the respondents have done. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed with costs.