ORDER O.P. Trivedi, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by B.L. Rastogi and 15 others. The petitioners were recruited as Ticket Collectors in the N.E. Railway in the grade of Rs. 110-180 and were confirmed in that post. They contend that thereafter they were promoted to the next promotion post of Travelling Ticket Examiner, of which the authorised scale of pay is Rs. 130-212. The post of Ticket Collector is an open line direct recruitment category, The direct recruitment category means and includes the posts of Booking Clerk, Trains Clerk, Guard, Assistant Station Master and Ticket Collector. In the Indian Railways in the ticket checking service there are two branches, i.e. Ticket Collectors group and Travelling Ticket Examiners group. Those serving in the Ticket checking service have the option either to elect to serve in the Ticket Collectors group or in the Travelling Ticket Examiners Group. If option is exercised by a Ticket Collector to serve in the Travelling Ticket Examiners group then for such a person the next promotion post is that of the Travelling Ticket Examiner, whereas for a Ticket Collector who opts to continue in the Ticket Collectors group the next promotion post is Passenger Guide which carries a pay scale of Rs. 110-200. As already stated, the pay scale of a Travelling Ticket Examiner (for the sake of brevity referred hereinafter as T.T.E.) is Rs. 130-212. The petitioners claim to have opted for the T.T.E. Group. It is their contention that before being promoted to the grade of T.T.E. a Ticket Collector who opts for the Travelling Ticket Examiners Group is promoted to an intermediate grade and posted as a Leave Reserve Ticket Collector (L.R.T.C.). The petitioners further contend that the post of L.R.T.C. is a promotion post. They were appointed to the said post on various dates between June, 1969 & July, 1970 as detailed in para 9 of the writ petition. As L.R.T.C., so it is claimed, the petitioners have been discharging the duties and responsibilities of a T.T.E. but they are not being paid salary according to the pay scale of Rs. 130-212 admissible to T.T.Es but according to the scale of Ticket Collectors, viz.. 11s. 110-180. As L.R.T.C., so it is claimed, the petitioners have been discharging the duties and responsibilities of a T.T.E. but they are not being paid salary according to the pay scale of Rs. 130-212 admissible to T.T.Es but according to the scale of Ticket Collectors, viz.. 11s. 110-180. This, the petitioners contend, is discriminatory as in all other Railways except the N.E. Railway a Ticket Collector opting for the Travelling Ticket Examiners Group is posted as Leave Reserve Travelling Ticket Examiner and paid the pay and emoluments of a T.T.E. in the scale of Rs. 130-212. The petitioners claim to have made representations to the Railway Administration seeking fixation of their pay in the post of L.R.T.C. in the authorised scale of Rs. 130-212 but without avail. 2. The North Eastern Railway ad- ministration was divided into eight districts. On 25-2-1969 the Railway Board divided the N.E. Railway into four divisions, each Division consisting of two districts (Annexure-5). In accordance with the order of the Railway Board as a consequence of fixing of Division a scheme for divisionalisation of the N.E. Railway was introduced and in order to implement divisionalisation the General Manager, N.E. Railway, drew up a scheme (vide Annexure-6). Under this scheme all the ministerial Class III and Class IV staff in the headquarter office other than those working in Stores, Accounts and Security Departments as well as ministerial staff working in specified district offices were given the option to indicate their choice for transfer and posting to various cadres in the Divisions. It provided that the transfer of staff outside . the cadre in open line direct recruitment categories' will be subject to their suitability and their qualifying at the end of training. By letter dated 9-1-1970 the General Manager clarified that the transfer of the ministerial staff in the open line direct recruitment categories in implement ion of this scheme will be treated as transfer on administrative ground (vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The same was repeated in the General Manager's letter of 27-2-1971 (Annexure-9). By this letter and an earlier letter of 8th April, 1969 (Annexure-7) it was clarified by the General Manager that the seniority of the ministerial staff transferred to open line categories in identical grades shall not affect their seniority which shall be fixed according to the length of service in the grade. By this letter and an earlier letter of 8th April, 1969 (Annexure-7) it was clarified by the General Manager that the seniority of the ministerial staff transferred to open line categories in identical grades shall not affect their seniority which shall be fixed according to the length of service in the grade. In other words, the seniority of such ministerial staff on their transfer to open line categories will be fixed in the grade of Ticket Collectors by counting their past service in the parent grade. 3. At the time of enforcement of this divisionalisation scheme opposite parties 5 to 9 and 11 to 19 were working as Clerks and C.M. Shukla, opposite party No. 10 was working in the Accounts Department. All of them opted for transfer to the open line categories and they were all transferred to the said categories and appointed Relieving Ticket Collectors in the grade of Rs. 110-180. Subsequently, however, they were treated as senior to the petitioners in the grade of Ticket Collectors after counting their past service as Clerks and they were promoted as T.T.Es. by an order dated 18th May, 1971 contained in Annexure-13, the petitioners being withdrawn from the post of L.R.T.C. and posted as Ticket Collectors. The petitioners feel aggrieved from the fact of their being withdrawn from the post of L.R.T.C. and the promotion of opposite parties 5 to 19 to the post of T.T.E. in disregard of petitioners' superior claims to seniority. The petitioners rely on a letter of the Railway Board dated 27-7-1966 to the General Managers of all the Indian Railways contained in Annexure-10 providing that "as a general rule junior most employee must be transferred first whenever any curtailment in the general cadre takes place." According to the petitioners the divisionalisation scheme caused curtailment in the ministerial cadres, rendered the ministerial staff of those cadres surplus and if instead of retrenchment of such staff the General Manager decided to absorb it in the open line categories then in accordance with this letter of the Railway Board the Junior-most employees should have been transferred to the cadre of Ticket Collectors and if that had been done the petitioners seniority would not have been affected. The petitioners maintain that opposite parties 5 to 19 were not the junior most clerks but senior clerks and their transfer was in disregard of Railway Board's instructions contained in.the letter of 27th July, 1966 and it is further maintained that in any case opposite parties 5 to 19 could not be treated as senior to the petitioners because their seniority on transfer should have been determined as from the date of transfer or posting in the grade of Ticket Collectors and their past services in the ministerial cadre should not have been taken into account. On this basis the petitioners claim that they are senior to opposite parties 5 to 19 and, therefore, challenge validity of their promotion to the post of T.T.E. to which the petitioners by reason of their seniority were entitled. As against C.M. Shukla, opposite party No. 10 there is an additional plea that according to the scheme for divisionalisation announced by the General Manager in his letter of 7-3-1969 (Annexure-6) employees working in Accounts department could not be considered for transfer to the divisions and yet against the terms of this scheme he was transferred and posted as relieving Ticket Collector subsequently promoted as T.T.E. The validity of the transfers of opposite parties 5 to 19 to the grade of Ticket Collector and their promotion as T. T. Es. is, on these facts and allegations, challenged as illegal. 4. The petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari quashing the office order dated 18-5-1971 (Annexure-13) in so far as it concerns the petitioners and opposite parties 5 to 19 and also the order of the General Manager dated 8-4-1969 (Annexure-7) containing clarification on the question of seniority of the staff transferred to open line categories. There is also a prayer for mandamus with a direction to opposite parties 1 to 4 to redetermine the seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis opposite parties 5 to 19 and with a direction commanding the same opposite parties to fix the pay of the petitioners in the grade of Leave Reserve Ticket Collector as admissible to T.T.Es. 5. There is also a prayer for mandamus with a direction to opposite parties 1 to 4 to redetermine the seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis opposite parties 5 to 19 and with a direction commanding the same opposite parties to fix the pay of the petitioners in the grade of Leave Reserve Ticket Collector as admissible to T.T.Es. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the General Manager, opposite party No. 2 and the Divisional Superintendent, N, E. Railway, opposite party No. 3, the opposite parties denying that the petitioners were ever promoted to the post of L.R.T.C. They contend that the post of L.R.T.C. is not a promotion post for a Ticket Collector and the petitioners were not entitled to the pay scale admissible to Ticket Collectors viz., Rupees 130-212. The opposite parties case is that a L.R.T.C. is detailed to carry out the duties and functions of a T.T.E. in the event of a casualty in the grade of T.T.E. in a temporary capacity in the scale of Rs. 110-180. According to them the petitioners are not entitled to the fixation of their pay as T.T.Es. in the scale of Rupees 130-212 as they were never promoted as T.T.Es. The opposite parties contend that there was no retrenchment of staff in the ministerial cadre and opposite parties 5 to 19 were not rendered surplus on account of reduction in cadre. The opposite parties were, therefore, according to them, entitled to the fixation of their seniority in the grade of Ticket Collectors on the basis of their initial order of appointment in the ministerial cadre under Para 311 of the Railway Establishment Manual. The promotion of opposite parties 5 to 19 to the post of T.T.E. was defended on the ground that they ranked senior to the petitioners. The opposite parties further maintain that the option for transfer to the open line categories was extended to the ministerial staff of the Accounts Department also which entitled C.M. Shukla to be transferred to the said grade. 6. I have heard arguments of Sarvasri B.L. Shukla and R.N. Trivedi appearing for the petitioners and Sri Umesh Chandra, Standing Counsel and Sri Umesh Chandra Srivastava appearing for the opposite parties. 7. 6. I have heard arguments of Sarvasri B.L. Shukla and R.N. Trivedi appearing for the petitioners and Sri Umesh Chandra, Standing Counsel and Sri Umesh Chandra Srivastava appearing for the opposite parties. 7. The first question which arises in the petition is whether the transfer of opposite parties 5 to 19 to the open line direct recruitment category from ministerial cadres in implementation of the divisionalisation scheme was illegal as contended for the petitioners. In this connection the petitioners rely solely on the letter of the Railway Board of 27th July, 1966 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). This letter was addressed by the Railway Board to the General Managers of all the Indian Railways and reads as follows - "Sub: Transfer in the event of curtailment of cadre etc. It has been brought to the notice oi the Board that the practice of transferring staff in the event of curtailment of a cadre varies from Railway to Railway and even from Division to Division on a Railway. With a view' to bring about uniformity in the matter, the Board desire that, as a general rule, junior most employee should be transferred first whenever any curtailment in a cadre takes place.'' The question arises whether this letter of the Railway Board governed the transfers which were to be made by the General Manager in implementation of the divisionalisation scheme. The opposite parties submit that this letter did not apply as there was no curtailment in cadre as a result oi the divisionalisation scheme contained in Annexure-6 and because the staff was not rendered surplus. This contention does not bear a moment's examination, In para 15 of the petition it was pleaded that as a result of introduction of the divisionalisation scheme some ministerial staff of Lucknow Division became surplus and that the administration decided to absorb the surplus ministerial staff in the open line direct recruitment category. Neither the plea that some ministerial staff became surplus nor that the administration had decided to absorb the surplus ministerial staff was denied specifically in para 15 of the counter affidavit. In paras 17 and 20 of the counter affidavit it was vaguely stated that there was no reduction in the Establishment of Railway Department. While there was averment about reduction in Establishment nothing was said about the ministerial cadre. Similar vagueness is noticeable in para 20 of the counter affidavit. In paras 17 and 20 of the counter affidavit it was vaguely stated that there was no reduction in the Establishment of Railway Department. While there was averment about reduction in Establishment nothing was said about the ministerial cadre. Similar vagueness is noticeable in para 20 of the counter affidavit. On the contrary the letter of the office of the General Manager to the Secretary, Railway Board, dated 10-9-1971 (Annexure-32) conclusively and without any room for controversy proves that on account of curtailment of cadres 344 persons in Class III and Class IV staff were rendered surplus as a result of the divisionalisation scheme. One is led to the same conclusion by Annexures 8, 9 and 9 (a) filed with the writ petition and Annexures 16, 17 and 18 filed by the petitioners with the rejoinder affidavit. The subject of Annexure-8, which is a letter of the General Manager addressed to all the Divisional Superintendents, N.E. Railway, dated 9th January, 1970 is: "Divisionalisation - absorption of Ministerial staff in open line categories." In further clarification of his letter dated 7th March, 1969 (Annexure-6) it contains instructions that the posting of staff in the open line categories should be done in the order of seniority on the list of the respective categories and in para 5 of this letter it is stated that those who had been screened for open line categories and trained should be posted in the open line categories and they should be replaced by clerks of other departments who are surplus to the requirement with equivalent seniority, thus showing that these transfers were occasioned by certain staff being rendered surplus in connection with enforcement of the divisionalisation scheme. In the letter of the General Manager dated 27th February, 1971 (Annexure-9) addressed to the Divisional Superintendents, N.E. Railway, also the subject of the letter is described as: "Divisionalisation absorption of ministerial staff in open line categories" and in the first paragraph of this letter reference is made to para 4 of letter of 9th January, 1971 to the effect that the transfer of the ministerial staff in the open line direct recruitment categories rendered surplus due to divisionalisation will be treated as transfer on administrative ground. In para 2 of this letter it is stated that posting orders in respect of surplus ministerial staff had been issued and as no further surplus staff was available for posting certain decisions contained in the letter had been taken. The letter of the General Manager dated 13th June, 1969 published in the Extraordinary Gazette of the same date (Annexure-9 (a)) also significantly contains the following heading: "Divisionalisation of N.E. Railway-Absorption of surplus staff." From all this documentary evidence I am left in no doubt that in the enforcement of the divisionalisation scheme in N.E. Railway, staff in certain categories was rendered surplus on account of curtailment or shrinkage of cadres and various transfers were made from these cadres to other cadres in accordance with the scheme contained in Annexure-6 with a view to absorb this staff. The contention that no staff was rendered surplus on account of curtailment of cadres and that the various transfers were made not for absorption of such surplus staff but in connection with adjustments is factually incorrect. On the other hand, the record shows that the various transfers in accordance with Annexure-6 were, so to speak, a kind of one-way traffic. Under Annexure-6 options for transfer were invited from Class III and Class IV staff working in the headquarters offices other than those working in Stores, Accounts and Security Departments; from the ministerial staff working in the specified district offices and from open line staff working west of Chhapra Kutchery only. If it were a case of adjustment then the options should have been thrown open to the entire staff which was not the case; and besides the transfers appeared to have been unilateral and not bilateral in the sense that the transfers from one office and station in their parent cadres or transfer of staff outside the cadre in open line direct recruitment categories appeared to have been made only from the cadres which were curtailed and in which the staff was rendered surplus and not vice, versa. It is, therefore, clear that the instructions of the Railway Board contained in its letter of 27th July, 1966 (Annexure-10). applied further to the transfers made in implementation of the divisionalisation scheme. 8. It is, therefore, clear that the instructions of the Railway Board contained in its letter of 27th July, 1966 (Annexure-10). applied further to the transfers made in implementation of the divisionalisation scheme. 8. It was argued by Sri Umesh Chandra, Standing Counsel, that this letter of the Railway Board did not govern the situation as it contained a general rule enjoining the transfers of junior-most employees first in the event of curtailment in a cadre and it was submitted that it was open to the General Manager to depart from this rule in exceptional cases and to transfer employees in order of their seniority. It was secondly urged that this letter of the Railway Board did not possess binding force but was only in the nature of an administrative instruction which was not justiciable. None of these contentions possess any substance. The relevant wordings of the Railway Board's letter (Annexure-10) shows that it laid down a general rule in order to enforce uniformity of practice in all the Railways in the matter of transfer of staff' on curtailment of a cadre. It contained, there- fore, a policy decision of the Railway Board of general applicability and did not confer on the General Manager power to deviate from it in exceptional cases. On the other hand, the letter enjoined that junior most employees should be transferred first whenever any curtailment in a cadre took place. The use of the word `whenever' has the force and implication of the phrase `whatever the cause may be'; in other words, the Railway Board enjoined that as a general rule junior-most employees should be transferred first whenever there is curtailment in the cadre, whatever the cause. In this particular case curtailment in various cadres was occasioned by the enforcement of the divisionalisation scheme. Therefore, this rule made by the Railway Board was immediately attracted and the General Manager had no options open to him to act otherwise unless specific sanction was obtained from the Railway Board in a given case to act otherwise. 9. The Railway Establishment Code has been issued by the President in exercise of his power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. By para 157 of the Railway Establishment Code (hereinafter called the Code) power has been delegated by the President to the Railway Board to make rules of general application to non gazetted Railway servants under their control. By para 157 of the Railway Establishment Code (hereinafter called the Code) power has been delegated by the President to the Railway Board to make rules of general application to non gazetted Railway servants under their control. Any orders passed by the Railway Board under the authority vested in it by Para 157 of the Code, therefore, have statutory force and are enforceable in a Court of law as such (see B.S. Vadera v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118 : (1969 Lab IC 100). Para 157 of the Code does not lay down any particular form for the exercise of power under it or the observance of any formality for the exercise of that power. Therefore, any order passed by the Railway Board which is of general application to non-Gazetted Railway servants under their control must be treated as a rule framed under Para 157 of the Code (See M.P. Patil v. D.R. Khanna, AIR 1965 Bom 267 ). Annexure-10 contains an order of the Railway Board which is of general application to the non-gazetted Railway servants under their control and must, therefore, be treated as a rule made under Para 157 of the Code and has the force of statute and cannot be given the status of a mere administrative instruction. This rule was, therefore, binding on the General Manager and he was bound to make a scheme for implementation of the divisionalisation scheme in accordance and consistent with this ride so that transfer of surplus staff from the ministerial cadres to the open line categories could have been made only from the bottom; from the junior most staff instead of from the top or on the basis of seniority. 10. However, the General Manager ignored this rule and the scheme for divisionalisation which was framed by him, as disclosed by Annexures 6, 8 and 9, was in breach of this rule or instruction of the Railway Board. The scheme framed by the General Manager (Annexure-6) called for options from the ministerial Class III arid Class IV staff working in the headquarter offices except those working in Stores, Accounts and Security Departments; from the ministerial staff in specific district offices and from open line staff working west of Chhapra Kutchery only. The scheme framed by the General Manager (Annexure-6) called for options from the ministerial Class III arid Class IV staff working in the headquarter offices except those working in Stores, Accounts and Security Departments; from the ministerial staff in specific district offices and from open line staff working west of Chhapra Kutchery only. It provided for transfer of the staff outside the cadre on the basis of two conditions: (1) their being found suitable and (2) their qualifying at the end of training. The letter of 9th January, 1970 (Annexure-8) clarified that the posting of the staff in the open line categories shall be done in the order of seniority on the list of the respective category. This letter also provided for setting up of a screening machinery to judge suitability of the staff to be transferred in this connection. The provision for transfer of the staff to open fine categories in order of seniority as well as the laying down of the conditions for judging suitability and qualifying at the end of the training or approval were clearly op- posed to the instruction contained in the letter of the' Railway Board of 27th July, 1966 (Annexure-6). The Railway Board in that letter, which has the force of a rule, has laid down a general policy that the transfer of surplus staff should be made for purposes of absorption from the junior most, whereas Annexure-8 provided for transfer in order of seniority. The provision for screening for judging suitability and the condition of qualifying at the end of the training also run counter to the rule of transfer from the bottom or the junior most as these two conditions were likely to defeat the policy of transfer from the bottom. In fact the rule having laid down the modality for transfer in order to absorb surplus staff, by Annexure there was no scope for the General Manager making transfers conditional on suitability or qualifying after training and as these two conditions were likely to defeat the rule of the Railway Board evidenced by Annexure-10 they were beyond the ambit and powers of the General Manager and, therefore, unsustainable in law. Indeed it is difficult to see the rationale behind the provision for screening for judging suitability when the transfer outside the cadre in the open line categories was to be made in the same grade in the parent department. Indeed it is difficult to see the rationale behind the provision for screening for judging suitability when the transfer outside the cadre in the open line categories was to be made in the same grade in the parent department. It was a case of transfer of equals to an identical grade in the open line category and not a case of transfer to a promotion grade. There was, therefore, hardly any' occasion for screening the clerical staff for judging their suitability for transfer. The necessary training after fer in the work of Ticket Collectors could be expected to equip the transferred staff to discharge their duties in the Ticket Collector's grade satisfactorily and if a particular transferred employee failed to qualify himself in the training that must in the ordinary course have affected his future chances of promotion. It is difficult to find any justification for making transfer conditional on the employee qualifying at the end of training. This was objectionable as it was likely to defeat the policy embodied in the Railway Board's letter of 27th July, 1966 by which surplus staff should be transferred for purposes of absorption from the bottom. 11. The motivation behind the policy of the Railway Board in the rule contained in Annexure-10 was plainly to safeguard the interests of the junior most employees and to secure and safeguard the seniority of the staff to whose cadre the transfers were made. The letters of 9th March, 1969 (Annexure-6) and 9th January, 1970 (Annexure-8) appeared to be wholly one-sided in that they appeared almost entirely to have catered to the interests of the transferred clerical staff working at the headquarter office and the district offices at the expense of the staff working in the divisions to which cadres the transfers were made in implementation of this scheme. The scheme evidenced by Annexures 6 and 8 disclosed undue concern and solicitude for the ministerial staff at the expense of the staff of the open line categories. It was little realised mat the staff from the ministerial cadre, if transferred to the open line categories, in order of seniority, will trench upon the seniority rights of the latter staff and mar their promotional prospects. It was little realised mat the staff from the ministerial cadre, if transferred to the open line categories, in order of seniority, will trench upon the seniority rights of the latter staff and mar their promotional prospects. The record shows that even the provisions for screening and training were not adhered to always when there was the question of accommodating the interest of clerical staff and the twin criteria for transfer laid down in Annexure-6 were jettisoned to accommodate senior clerks over the junior ones. This is illustrated by the last paragraph of the letter of the General Manager dated 27th February, 1971 (Annexure-9). This letter pointed out that by then practically no surplus ministerial staff was available for further posting and, therefore, it was decided that no ministerial staff screened for open line categories whose orders had not been received by then shall be sent for training, but laid down the following exception: "Only in those cases in which senior screened staff have not been sent for training and juniors have already been trained and posted, the senior should be sent for training and after training they should replace the juniors who should be posted ask to their parent cadre,'' It was pointed out in arguments that the divisionalisation scheme contained in the letter of 7th March, 1969 (Annexure-6) excluded staff working in the Accounts Department and yet C.M. Shukla, opposite party No. 10, who belonged to the Accounts Department, was transferred to the open line direct recruitment category. This contention also appears to be Dome out from the record. The transfer and appointment of C.M. Shukla to the open line category was sought to be justified in para 29 of the opposite parties' counter affidavit on the ground that the option for open line category was extended to the ministerial staff of Accounts and other departments also subsequently and for this reliance was placed on two letters one dated December 22, 1969 (Annexure B-5) and the other dated 6th December 1969 (Annexure B-6). It is difficult on the basis of Annexures B-5 and B-6 to hold that the option for open line categories was extended to staff working in the Accounts section subsequently in modification of Annexure-6. Annexure B-5 is a letter from Sri S.E.H. Shah, Financial Advise of and Chief Accounts Officer to Sri Vikram Singh, Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, N.E. Railway. It is difficult on the basis of Annexures B-5 and B-6 to hold that the option for open line categories was extended to staff working in the Accounts section subsequently in modification of Annexure-6. Annexure B-5 is a letter from Sri S.E.H. Shah, Financial Advise of and Chief Accounts Officer to Sri Vikram Singh, Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, N.E. Railway. The letter refers to certain telephonic conversation between him and the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer and offers to enclose with the letter the options of 196 staff of the Accounts Department. Annexure B-6 is a letter from Sri J.N. Shukla, Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer dated 6th December, 1969 addressed to the Sectional Officers, Senior Accountants etc. inviting applications from the ministerial staff of the Accounts Department expressing option for being considered for absorption in the open line categories of the N.E. Railway. On the basis of these two documents modification in the original letter of the General Manager dated 7th March, 1969 by which staff of the Accounts Department was expressly excluded from the option cannot possibly be lead. No subsequent order of the General Manager in modification of the letter of 7th March, 1969 is forthcoming nor is there anything in writing from the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer to show that the option was subsequently extended by the General Manager to the Accounts Department; far less that the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer had the authority of the General Manager to communicate this extension to the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer. It must, therefore, inevitably follow that C.M. Shukla, opposite party No. 10 belonging to the Accounts Department, was transferred to the open line category against the scheme declared by the General Manager in his letter of 7th March, 1969 which y itself will be a ground for holding his transfer to that category and his initial appointment as L.R.T.C. was without the authority of law and, therefore, illegal. 12. It is further noticeable that the open line categories were not filled according to the number of ministerial staff actually rendered surplus but indiscriminately and arbitrarily the ranks of the open line categories were swamped by transfers from the ministerial cadre leading to a situation of shortage in the ministerial cadres below' the sanctioned strength. 12. It is further noticeable that the open line categories were not filled according to the number of ministerial staff actually rendered surplus but indiscriminately and arbitrarily the ranks of the open line categories were swamped by transfers from the ministerial cadre leading to a situation of shortage in the ministerial cadres below' the sanctioned strength. Transfers to the open line category in the divisions opened out attractive vistas of promotion and this appears to explain the general clamour amongst ministerial staff for transfer to these categories and large options received. Every effort seems to have been made to accommodate their aspirations with little regard to the prejudice these transfers were likely to cause to the staff of the open line categories. Annexure-32 produced by the petitioners along with Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2537 (w) of 1972 reveals the case in point. It is a letter of the General Manager dated 10th September, 1971 addressed to the Secretary, Railway Board. Paras 8 and 11 of this letter disclosed that inasmuch as transfers to the open line categories were made from the ministerial cadre far in excess of the surpluses caused in these cadres .vacancies had been caused in the ministerial cadres which necessitated recruitment of 90 clerks. 13. From the above remarks it is clear that in transferring opposite parties 5 to 19 from the ministerial cadre to the open line categories in order of seniority rather than on the basis that the junior most was transferred first, the scheme of divisionalisation and these transfers offended against the rule of the Railway Board dated 27th July, 1966 (Annexure-10). These transfers and the scheme to the extent it was repugnant to and inconsistent with the Railway Board's order of 27th July, 1966 were invalid in law. Para 158 of the Code provides that the General Managers of Indian Railways shall have power to make rules with regard to non-gazetted servants under their control provided they are not inconsistent with the rules made by the President or the Railway Board, Sri Umesh Chandra, Standing Counsel, relied on a decision of Lokur, J., D/- 19-2-1971 in Writ Petition No. 3285 of 1969 (All), A.K. Banerji v. The Railway Board upheld in Special Appeal No. 258 of 1971, decided by a Bench of this Court on 30-11-1971. That writ petition was filed by certain Ticket Collectors challenging certain order of promotion to the post of T.T.E. passed in favour of certain opposite parties, who like opposite parties 5 to 19 had been transferred to the open line categories. The main ground of attack against the order of promotion passed in favour of the opposite parties in that petition was that the petitioners were senior to the opposite parties and the opposite parties had been given promotion although they were juniors. The only point argued in the case before the learned Single Judge was that in fixing seniority the opposite parties were not entitled to claim their past services in the ministerial cadre being taken into account because their transfers could not be treated as one in administrative interest but rather as a result of their option and their seniority was determinable on the basis of para 312 of the Manual and not Para 311. This contention was not accepted as it was found that transfers of opposite parties to the open line categories were made in administrative interest and not at the request of the opposite parties and therefore their seniority was found to have been rightly determined on the basis of their initial appointment under Para 311 of the Manual. This view was accepted by the Bench in Appeal. No challenge appears to have been made in arguments either before the learned Single Judge or before the Bench to the transfers or postings of the opposite parties of that case on the basis of the letter of the Railway Board dated 27th July, 1966 (Annexure-10 of the present writ petition). The decision in that writ petition and in the special appeal has, therefore, no bearing on the issue before us as to what is the effect of the order of the Railway Board dated 27th July 1966 on the scheme of divisionalisation and transfers of opposite parties 5 to 19. That decision has bearing only on the question whether the opposite parties when transferred from the S ministerial cadres to the open line categories were entitled to consideration of their past services for determination of seniority or whether their past services could not be considered for the purpose. That decision has bearing only on the question whether the opposite parties when transferred from the S ministerial cadres to the open line categories were entitled to consideration of their past services for determination of seniority or whether their past services could not be considered for the purpose. I, therefore, conclude that the scheme of divisionalisation framed by the General Manager and, contained in his letters of 7th March, 1969 (Annexure-8) and 9th January 1970 (Annexure-9) is invalid in law to the extent it is repugnant and inconsistent with the order of the Railway Board dated 27-7-1966 contained in Annexure-10 of this writ petition' and further that the transfers and initial appointments of opposite parties 5 to 19 as L.R.T.C. are also held illegal as they Were I in violation of the Railway Board's order off 27-7-1966 (Annexure-10). The initial appointment of these opposite parties in the open line categories being illegal, their subsequent promotion to the post of T.T.E. by I the order dated 18th May, 1971 contained I in Annexure-13 of the writ petition is also I invalid in law. 14. The next submission on behalf of the petitioners is that opposite parties 5 to 19 are junior to them; they were wrongly treated as senior and were not entitled to be promoted as T.T.E. overlooking the petitioners' higher claims. For this argument reliance was placed by the petitioners on the Railway Board's order of 27th July, 1966 contained in Annexure-10 and on Annexures-20 and 21. Annexure-10 is silent on the question of seniority. It only lays down the rule that whenever a transfer is made in the event of curtailment of a cadre the junior most will be the first to be transferred. On what basis the seniority of such a person, who is transferred in accordance with Annexure-10, will be fixed is not touched in, Annexure-10. Therefore, in that order of the Railway Board is of no assistance so far as the question of basis for determination of seniority of persons transferred from the ministerial cadre to the Annexures-20 and 21, to my mind, do not apply and do not govern the ease like the present one. Therefore, in that order of the Railway Board is of no assistance so far as the question of basis for determination of seniority of persons transferred from the ministerial cadre to the Annexures-20 and 21, to my mind, do not apply and do not govern the ease like the present one. Annexure-20 is a letter from the Ministry of Railways dated 15-4-1966 to the General Manager and deals with the subject of absorption of surplus staff of the North Eastern Frontier Railway consequent upon the completion of certain construction projects in that Railway. It laid down the terms and conditions for the absorption of such staff rendered surplus consequent on the completion of certain construction projects in the said Railway and provides that no benefit for the previous services should be allowed for fixation of seniority irrespective of the fact whether the services were continuous or otherwise. Annexure-21 is another letter from the Railway Board to the General Managers of all the Indian Railways dated 12-5-1966 and deals with the subject of absorption of the staff rendered surplus on the projects of these Railways. It says that the responsibility for the absorption of surplus staff of Railways devolves on all the Indian Railways as a whole and that the Board had decided that the decision contained in the letter of 15-4-1966 (Annexure-20) relating to absorption of surplus staff on the North Eastern Frontier Railway should be followed also in absorbing the surplus staff in various construction projects of these Railways. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the terms and conditions laid down for absorption in Annexure-20 were extended to other Railways and were intended to apply to every category' of surplus staff caused in the Railways whether on the completion of a construction work or for any other cause. The letter Annexure-21, to my mind, does not lend itself to any such wide construction. In the letter of 15th April. 1966 (Annexure-20), the Railway Board were dealing with the problem of absorption of surplus staff on one Railway, namely, the North Eastern Frontier Railway, caused by the completion of certain construction projects on that Railway. They appeared to be dealing in Annexure-21 with the surplus of staff caused in like situation over other Railways, namely, by the completion of certain construction projects. They appeared to be dealing in Annexure-21 with the surplus of staff caused in like situation over other Railways, namely, by the completion of certain construction projects. Annexure-21, to my mind therefore, is confined only to absorption of surplus staff caused by the completion of projects on Railways and not to surplus of staff caused for other reasons. Consequently, surplus caused on account of divisionalisation scheme cannot be treated on the basis of Annexures-20 and 21. On the other hand, the implementation of the divisionalisation scheme clearly contemplated absorption of surplus staff by transfer to open line and other categories. Annexure-10 also deals with absorption of surplus staff by transfer and therefore one must look to the seniority rules consequent on transfer, bearing on the question of seniority, on transfer. The Indian Railway Manual contained in Paras 311 and 312 of the Manual. Para 311 provides that seniority of Railway servants on transfer from one cadre to another in the interest of administration is regulated by the date of promotion (or) date of appointment to the grade as the case may be. Under this rule, therefore, whenever a railway servant is transferred in the interest of administration his past services must be considered in fixing his seniority on transfer, Para 312, on the other hand, provides that the seniority of railway servants transferred at their own request from one railway to another should be allotted below that of the existing confirmed and officiating railway servants in the relevant grade in the promotion group in the new establishment irrespective of the date of confirmation or length of officiating service of the transferred servants. It is plain that the transfers envisaged in the scheme prepared by the General Manager for absorption of surplus staff were in implementation of the decision to divisionalise the Railway administration. Divisionalisation was ordered for purposes of rationalisation or streamlining the Railway administration. It was, therefore, a. scheme in the interest of administration and any transfers made in implementation of such a scheme must itself be treated as being in the interest of administration. The contention of the opposite parties, therefore, that transfers to the cadre of Ticket Collectors were made in the interest of administration appears to be well-founded. Seniority on transfer is determinable only on the basis of two provisions: viz., Paras 311 and 312 of the Manual. The contention of the opposite parties, therefore, that transfers to the cadre of Ticket Collectors were made in the interest of administration appears to be well-founded. Seniority on transfer is determinable only on the basis of two provisions: viz., Paras 311 and 312 of the Manual. A transfer is either in the interest of administration or on request. The case, therefore, must fall within one of these two provisions of the Manual. The nature of transfer being one in the interest of administration is not, to my mind, altered by the fact that options were invited. The fact of opposite parties opting for these transfers does not make (those) transfers on request and does not detract from the fact of the transfer being in the interest of administration. In that view of the matter, every transfer made in implementation of the divisionalisation scheme whether on option or otherwise must be governed by para 311 of the Manual for determination of seniority. This was also a decision by a Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 258 of 1971 decided on 30-11-1971 (All) upholding the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petn. No. 3285 of 1969 (All) referred to above, with which view I am in respectful agreement. But so far as opposite parties 5 to 19 are concerned they could not claim seniority over the petitioners as on my finding their transfer and initial appointment to the open line categories themselves were invalid in law being opposed to the Railway Board's order of 27-7-1966. In this situation the petitioners cannot succeed in their prayer for mandamus for refixing of their seniority vis-a-vis opposite parties 5 to 19 nor can the prayer for quashing Annexure-7 he granted. Indeed no such question would arise. 15. The next point which arises for determination is whether the post of L.R.T.C. is a promotion post as contended for the petitioners and whether on that account they are entitled to the pay admissible to Travelling Ticket Examiners. The opposite parties deny that the post of L.R.T.C. is a promotion post and contend that the pay scale of Ticket Collectors and L.R.T.Cs. is the same viz. Rs. 110-180. There appears to be no legal basis for the petitioners' contention that the post of L.R.T.C. is a promotion post from the post of Ticket Collector. The opposite parties deny that the post of L.R.T.C. is a promotion post and contend that the pay scale of Ticket Collectors and L.R.T.Cs. is the same viz. Rs. 110-180. There appears to be no legal basis for the petitioners' contention that the post of L.R.T.C. is a promotion post from the post of Ticket Collector. The booklet entitled `Channels of promotions of Class III and IV staff' shows that for the ticket checking staff opting for T.T.E. Group after the post of Ticket Collector the next promotion post is T.T.E. in the scale of Rs. 130-212. The post of L.R.T.C. is not shown in this channel as a promotion post and the petitioners were unable to draw my attention to any rule under which a L.R.T.C. was entitled to some higher pay scale than a Ticket Collector or a pay scale equivalent to that of a T.T.C. and the petitioners' contention that the post of L.R.T.C. forms an intermediate grade between the post of Ticket Collector and T.T.E. also remains unsubstantiated. On the other hand the Railway Board's Circular Letter No. E-48DSI-2(R), dated 12th July, 1948 contained in the Personnel Branch Gazette shows that the Railway Board laid down that ordinarily the leave reserves should be provided in the lowest category in each normal promotion group, except in the following cases where leave reserves may be provided in the intermediate grades. The chart given below para 3 of this letter does not bring the case of a L.R.T.C. in the exceptions and consequently the L.R.Ts. in terms of this letter of the Board cannot but be placed at the lowest category and not in theintermediate grade. Annexures B-1 to B-4 are the orders by which the petitioners were posted as L.R.T.Cs. and they clearly specify that they are being posted as L.R.T.Cs. in the scale of Rs. 110-180. The petitioners, however, place reliance on Annexure-2, which is an order of appointment of S.J. Shukla, S.C. Saggal and J.P. Pandey as L.R.T.C. This order mentions that these persons are promoted to work as L.R.T.Cs. (Rs. 110-180). The argument is that because these persons were described as promoted to the post of L.R.T.C. it was implied that the post of L.R.T.C. was a promotion post. (Rs. 110-180). The argument is that because these persons were described as promoted to the post of L.R.T.C. it was implied that the post of L.R.T.C. was a promotion post. I agree with the submission made on behalf of the opposite parties that the posting of S.J. Shukla and others was described as promoted in loose language and not in the true and accepted sense of promotion to higher post or to a post carrying higher salary or grade. This follows logically from the fact that Annexure-2 itself clarified that as L.R.T.C. they would draw a salary in the scale of Rs. 110-180. This made the word `promoted' clearly meaningless. It appears that in this loose sense L.R.T.Cs. appear to have been described sometimes as promoted to the post of Ticket Collector, which was in fact not a promotion post according to the rules and it is in this sense that the pleadings contained in the counter affidavit so far as this matter is concerned should, I think, in all fairness be understood. There is, however, this question to consider whether the Ticket Collectors, who were posted as L.R.T.Cs, should be paid the salary of a Travelling Ticket Examiner. The basis of petitioners' claim in this respect is that as L.R.T.Cs. they have been continuously performing the duties and discharging the responsibilities of Travelling Ticket Examiners and as they perform the same duties they must be entitled to the same pay scale. The contention in the counter affidavit of the opposite parties is that a L.R.T.C. performs the duties of a T.T.E. only on the occurring of a vacancy or casualty in the grade of Ticket Collector. This has not been seriously disputed. The petitioners seek to back their claim in this regard on the basis that Ticket Collectors on other Railways whenever perform the duties of a Ticket Collector or T.T.E. while working as Leave Reservists are paid the same salary as a T.T.E. The petitioners were how- ever, unable to produce any rules which entitled the staff working in Leave Reserves and performing the duties of a T.T.E. on other Railways to the pay and salary' of a T.T.E. Therefore, no case on the basis of discrimination under Article 16 of the Constitution of India can be successfully made out unless it is founded on some rule of law. In so far as the argument that the petitioners are entitled to the salary of a T.T.E. as they perform the duties of a T.T.E. in their capacity as L.R.T.C., the contention for the opposite parties is that the L.R.T.Cs. perform the duties of the T.T.E. only on the happening of a casualty or in the event of a vacancy in the T.T.Es. cadre. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this stand of the Railways in the absence of clear and definite evidence from the side of the petitioners that they have been continuously performing the duties of T.T.E. without break from the time of their appointment as L.R.T.Cs. Plainly a L.R.T.C. could not claim the salary of a T.T.E. by the mere fact of his appointment as L.RT.C. because upon my finding it is not a promotion post and does not carry the same pay scale as that of a T.T.E. It is different matter if a L.R.T.C. is appointed to hold substantively as a temporary measure or to officiate as T.T.E. in a leave vacancy in which case he may be entitled to higher salary in accordance with Para 2038 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume 11, or Fundamental Rule 49. When such is the case, the L.R.T.C. can always claim higher salary on the basis of these specific provisions. But apart from these provisions, which apply under specific conditions the L.R.T.C. cannot as a matter of right claim the salary and pay scale of a T.T.E. This, however, is the strict position of law, but if in actual fact the petitioners and other L.R.T.Cs. continuously perform the duties and responsibilities of a T.T.E. then it would certainly be a case evoking sympathies of this Court and I think from the purely humanitarian point of view and from the point of view of fairness the Railway Board may do justice by thinking over providing intermediate grade to the L.R.T.Cs. by suitable amendments in the Board's Circular Letter No. E-48DSI-2(R), dated 12th July, 1948. 16. My answer, however, to the Suggestion whether L.R.T.Cs. are entitled to the pay scale of T.T.E. must be, as matters stand, in the negative. 17. by suitable amendments in the Board's Circular Letter No. E-48DSI-2(R), dated 12th July, 1948. 16. My answer, however, to the Suggestion whether L.R.T.Cs. are entitled to the pay scale of T.T.E. must be, as matters stand, in the negative. 17. For the foregoing reasons the petitioners are entitled to a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of appointment of opposite parties 5 to 19 to the post of T.T.E. by Annexure-13 and reversion of the petitioners from the post of L.R.T.C. The writ of mandamus asking opposite parties 1 to 4 to determine the seniority of the petitioners and opposite parties 5 to 19, however, cannot be granted as the initial appointment of opposite parties 5 to 19 to the post of L.R.T.C. and their subsequent appointment to the post of T.T.E. are invalid in law. The petitioners' prayer for mandamus commanding opposite parties 1 to 4 to fix their pay in the grade of Rs. 130-212 also, for reasons given above, must fail, 18. I allow the petition. The order dated 18-5-1971, of which Annexure-13 filed with the writ petition is a copy, is quashed in so far as it relates to the appointment of opposite parties 5 to 19 as Travelling Ticket Examiners and in so far as the petitioners are reverted by that order from the post, of Leave Reserve Ticket Collector. The prayer for mandamus is dismissed. The petitioners will get the costs of this petition from opposite parties 1 to 4.