JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :- In this petition, the petitioner has impeached the orders dated 5th August, 1969, 30th April, 1971 and 28th August. 1971, issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway and has also challenged the purported actions of the Respondents in reducing his salary and in denying the scale of pay. 2. On or about 23rd April, 1938 the petitioner ~as appointed as a number-taker in the then Bengal Nagpur Railway and thereafter he has alleged to have been promoted as a Stenographer under the said Railway on 5th January, 1943, in the scale of Rs. 65-85/-, He has further alleged that he was so appointed as a Stenographer after being successful in the required test. Thereafter, the petitioner has stated that on 19th April, 1946 he was promoted as a Stenographer in the Grade III, viz., Rs. 100/-after duly qualifying in the necessary test. It bas been alleged by the petitioner that on or about 6th July, 1946, he was again promoted to Stenographer Grade II and was posted at Kharagpur and ultimately he was confirmed as the Stenographer, Grade II on 6th March, 1950. 3. The petitioner has alleged that during the service under the then Bengal Nagpur Railway, personal matters were dealt with by the Superintendent, Transportation, Traffic, Garden Reach and he never worked under the Mechanical Department. Such statement, the petitioner has made for the purpose of establishing the fact that his papers, thus would not be available with the said Mechanical Department. The Petitioner bas further alleged that in the then Bengal Nagpur Railway, recruitment of Stenographer was made only after they have passed a test conducted and the minimum requisite qualification for such test was 100 words per minute. He has further stated that although tests were regularly held, there had been no procedure of intimating individual employees about the results of such test and success in such tests had to be understood from the permission to officiate to each higher grade. A, indicated above, the petitioner has also made it clear that be was duly promoted to the higher grades of Rs. 65-85/- and Rs. 100/- only after passing the successive tests in accordance with the necessary rules. 4. A, indicated above, the petitioner has also made it clear that be was duly promoted to the higher grades of Rs. 65-85/- and Rs. 100/- only after passing the successive tests in accordance with the necessary rules. 4. It appears that the petitioner has also contended that the Railway Board by their letter No. BC/68/PS-5/08 dated 30th August, 1968 made provisions for exemptions from passing fresh tests and crossing the efficiency but for promotion to the Grade of Rs 240-425/- (AS) t.) earlier direct recruits in the Railways. The petitioner has alleged that he was in continuous service and without any break under the Railways and furthermore his service record is satisfactory. He has contended that for such satisfactory service be had earned series of promotions without any objection or hindrance from any quarter. 5. On or about 1st October, 1947 the petitioner admittedly opted for the Central Pay Commission and leave rules and on such option into such scale of pay he was placed in the scale of Rs. 130 300/-. He has alleged that. he was drawing the maximum pay permissible in the said scale of Rs. 130-300/- after duly passing the necessary tests from time to time and with effect from 26th December, 1960 he was posted to the office (of Respondent No.5, viz. Divisional Superintendent, South Eastern Railway Kharagpur. The petitioner has' stated that while he was so drawing the maximum pay permissible to Stenographers h the scale of Rs. 130-300/- there was a selection of Inspectors to the Vigilance Organisation and on 26th October, 1961 he was selected for the post of Vigilance Inspector in the Grade of Rs. 250-380/- for immediate filling up of the posts and such selection of the petitioner was personally approved by the Respondent No.2, South Eastern Railway. The petitioner has stated that he had also agreed to and accepted such selection and posting. It appears that in the event of such happening the petitioner was released from the office of Divisional Superintendent, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur and was duly posted under the Respondent No.1 viz.. Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway as Vigilance inspector, South Eastern Railway and in fact on 3rd November, 1961 he duly joined in the said post. It appears that in the event of such happening the petitioner was released from the office of Divisional Superintendent, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur and was duly posted under the Respondent No.1 viz.. Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway as Vigilance inspector, South Eastern Railway and in fact on 3rd November, 1961 he duly joined in the said post. The petitioner has alleged that in the posting order dated 26th October, 1961 (Annexure B) there was no indication that such posting and selection of the petitioner was for a temporary tenure or on the basis, of a stop-gap measure. He has stated that in case he was informed about such stipulation then he would not have accepted or consented to join the said Vigilance Organisation. In short, the petitioner has stated that he was never informed about the fact that such posting was on a stop gap measure or for a deputation. Further the petitioner has also meritorious his services under the said Vigilance Organisation was also exemptionary and in fact for such meritorious, work he was given special reward and furthermore because of his meritorious work be was promoted to officiate as Senior Vigilance Inspector since October, 1969 in the scale of Rs. 335-475/- (AS) and he duly reached the maximum of that scale on or about February, 1971. 6. In any event it appears that the petitioner had been in continuous service in the said Vigilance Organisation for the well over 9 years and bad also been officiating as Senior Vigilance Inspector in the scale and the manner as mentioned hereinbefore for more than 18 months. The petitioner has stated that in any view of the matter because of such officiating tenure he was entitled to the protection as conveyed by Railway Board's letter No. E(D.A) 64 R.G.-632 dated 1st August 1966, as circulated by the Chief Personnel Officer, under his Memo dated 12th August, 1966 wherefrom it appears that in view of the instructions contained in Board's confidential letter No. E(D.A) 65-R.G.-24 dated 9th June, 1965 it has been held that in future any person who is promoted to officiate beyond 18 months, cannot be reverted for unsatisfactory work without following the procedure prescribed in the Discipline and Appeal Rules. As the petitioner was not called for the selection to the Grade of Rs 210-425/-(AS), be lodged a protest to the Divisional Superintendent, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur contending that in view of the services rendered by him, he was entitled to be called for such selection. As nothing was done, soon 29th January 1969, the petitioner made a further representation to the Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, for the redress of his grievances and also for the issue of a certificate under "next below rule". Such representation of the petitioner was followed by any letter of 28th May, 1969 and ultimately by letter No. P/H.7/SrN/Selection dated 5th August 1969, the petitioner was informed by the Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway that necessary permission to the petitioner for exemption from test was refused. Such determination was also followed by successive reminders by the petitioner and he has also alleged that the quoting such refusal, the Respondents failed to appreciate and consider that he was duly appointed after satisfying the authorities concerned that at by material times be had the prescribed minimum speed and efficiency. The petitioner has alleged the said order to be untenable and baseless as in making the same the Respondents have failed to take into consideration, the successive and progressive promotions duly received by him. He has also alleged that employees junior to him have been confirmed as stenographers and have been given pre motions superseding his claim unauthorisedly and the non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the list of Stenographers on the scale of Rs. 130-300/- till 4th August, 1969, bas caused grave prejudice and resulted in great injustice to him and as a result of such unauthriosed act or action, his position in the seniority list has been adversely affected. 7. Thereafter, on or about 30th April i971, the Chief Personnel Officer concerned released the petitioner amongst others from the said Vigilance Organisation on transfer, with instructions to report to his parent office with effect from 1st May 1971. The petitioner has stated that the said order to be void. 7. Thereafter, on or about 30th April i971, the Chief Personnel Officer concerned released the petitioner amongst others from the said Vigilance Organisation on transfer, with instructions to report to his parent office with effect from 1st May 1971. The petitioner has stated that the said order to be void. illegal and irregular as in the same it was not specified the post, which was required to be had on such release and furthermore as his designation in the said Vigilance Organisation has been shown without any justifiable reason as "stop gap" and the more so when at any point of time, prior thereto, he was informed that either his posting or his continuance in the said Vigilance department was on the basis of "stop gap" arrangement the petitioner bas specifically mentioned in the petition the particulars of financial loss and prejudice which he would suffer because of such action and posting as directed by the Respondent and he has also submitted that if such fact of "stop gap" arrangement in the said Vigilance Organisation was made known to him earlier, then he would never had opted for the same and in fact be has opted in the manner as stated above because he never knew about the said pretended stipulations. 8. In the background of the facts as mentioned hereinbefore, the petitioner bas contended that because of the acts and actions of the Respondents, he has been subjected to gross arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory treatment and in fact the impugned orders, which have been passed in total disregard of the statutory Rules, have infringed his statutory rights. He bas further contended that the impugned action in sending him back to his parent post from the post which he was holding for a long time, as an act of reversion to a lower scale of pay and in the alternative he bas argued that even if such reversion to his parent and substantive post is possible, the same in all fairness should not have been directed because there was no laches or negligence on his put while discharging the duties under the said Vigilance Organisation and the more so when he was not at all informed that his posting under the said Vigilance Organisation was for a temporary period or on a "stop gap" basis. The petitioner has further submitted that since he has continuously officiated for about seven years in a higher grade in the Vigilance Organisation so he should have been deemed to have been automatically confirmed under the said Organisation in terms of the Railway Board's Circular No. P/H/CON/D&A/Pt, on dated 12th August 1960 (Annexure C). 9. The Respondents in their return to the Rule have disputed the fact of petitioner's promotion as Stenographer in 1943 by the then Bengal Nagpur Railway and also the face of his passing the necessary test with 100 words per minute, as no such record was available. They have also denied the fact of petitioner's promotion to higher grade in 1946 on the basis of his passing the test with a speed of 110-120 words per minute. They have of course admitted that the petitioner was' initially 'appointed as 'number taker' and later on promoted as Stenographer. The Respondents have stated that the petitioner was a promotee stenographer and was not a directly recruited one and since there was or bas been no uniform procedure prescribed by the then Bengal Nagpur Railway to the effect that a stenographer would have to pass a minimum speed limit in order to be promoted or to pass the Efficiency Bar test, so it could not be considered that the petitioner had passed the said test with such minimum speed as mentioned above. The Respondents have of course admitted that the pay of the petitioner on his opting for the Central Pay Commission scales was fixed in the scale of Rs. 130-300/- (AS). 10. The Respondents have further contended that the Vigilance Organisation of the Railways was at all material times and still is a temporary Organisation in the respective General Manager's office and the staff employed in such Organisation are drafted from the parent departments of the Railway for filling up the posts of Vigilance Inspectors amongst others. They have further stated that such posts of Vigilance Inspectors are generally filled up by temporary transfer of staff from other departments of the Railways, while they retain their respective liens in their parent departments, to which they are transferred back on being released from the Vigilance Organisation. It has been contended that such employees hold the posts on tenure or temporary basis maintaining their respective liens in the parent departments. It has been contended that such employees hold the posts on tenure or temporary basis maintaining their respective liens in the parent departments. It has also been stated that the Vigilance Organisation is not a permanent department and since the same is a temporary one, all appointments made therein are either temporary or officiating or on stop-gap basis The Respondents have also referred to a letter of the Railway Board, being No. VIG 1/1/101 dated 10th June 1965, wherein it has been laid down that the tenure of the investigating staff of the Vigilance Organisation should not exceed 3 years. In view of the above, the Respondents submitted that the petitioner held his lien in his parent office viz, District Operating Superintendent, Kharagpur and not in the Vigilance Organisation in question. They have also stated that the petitioner had been released and thereafter he had been duly posted in his onginal Post. It has further been contended by the Respondents that the petitioner was serving under the said Vigilance Organisation on transfers from his parent department on tenure or temporary basis. They have also contended that there is no Rule or Order that the employees concerned will have to be informed about the nature of their appointments in the Vigilance Organisation and the knowledge of such tenure appointment should be presumed. It has further been contended by the Respondents that by such temporary or stop-gap posting in the Vigilance Organisation, the petitioner really got some benefits and at all material time be was well aware of the nature of his posting in the said Organisation. They have further contended that the cadre of vigilance Inspector was and still is temporary, as the Organisation itself at all material times and still to-day is a temporary one. In that view of the matter it has been contended by the Respondents that the Railway Board's Instructions as mentioned here-in- before are not applicable in cases of transfer of the petitioner to his parent department for administrative reasons, wholly unconnected with his conduct. 11. In addition to the above the respondents have contended that the entire Vigilance Organisation being a temporary one and since the petitioner himself as such held a tenure post for a limited period, the Railway Board's Estt. 11. In addition to the above the respondents have contended that the entire Vigilance Organisation being a temporary one and since the petitioner himself as such held a tenure post for a limited period, the Railway Board's Estt. Sil No. 304/70 dated 17th December 1970 (Annexure D), which speaks of confirmation of Railway servants on certain specified grounds after officiating appointment, has got no application. The Respondents have also contended that the passing of Efficiency Bar in a grade to earn increments is wholly irrelevant for promotion to higher scales as employees are called for selection for promotion in higher scale according to their turn on the basis of respective seniority and not on the other basis of passing the Efficiency Bar test as alleged. They have also disputed the existence of any Rule for issuing a certificate under the next below Rule as contended by the petitioner. 12. It has also been contended by the Respondents that there has been no justification of the petitioner in asking for the exemption from appearing at the professional test, i.e. dictation in stenography in view of the fact that he was neither directly recruited as stenographer nor there are records to show that he duly passed the Efficiency Bar test with a speed of more then 100 words per minute. They have further stated that under the then Bengal Nagpur Railway, there was no uniform procedure for holding Efficiency Bar test at a specified speed and if there was such a procedure and the petitioner has passed such a test then that would have certainly been entered in his Service Rolls. Thus it has been submitted that there having been no uniform procedure, the petitioner cannot infer that he was found to be qualified on the basis of his alleged passing of the test. It has further been' contended that the post of senior stenographer being a selection post, those who appeared and qualified in selection were empanelled and duly promoted according to their turn. The Respondents have contended that the petitioner not having qualified in the selection cannot claim promotion as senior stenographer since such selection is regulated on the basis of selection and not on the basis of seniority alone. The Respondents have contended that the petitioner not having qualified in the selection cannot claim promotion as senior stenographer since such selection is regulated on the basis of selection and not on the basis of seniority alone. The Respondents have also contended that since the petitioner's deputation to his original post, where he had his lien, from the post which he was holding in the Vigilance Organisation as a stop-gap measure, was not by way of penalty, the same could not be termed or considered to be an act of reversion and in fact by such an act the petitioner has suffered no loss at all. 13. Thus the question in the instant case to be decided first is whether the Vigilance Organisation is a temporary one and then if the petitioner holds a tenure post in such Organisation on a temporary or stop-gap measure, whether he would acquire any right to be confirmed and placed in the higher grade and scale as contended. In support of his contentions on the said point that the Vigilance Organisation is a temporary one, Mr. Basu, appearing for the Respondents first relied on the unreported judgment of this Court dated 11th February 1969, made by D. Basu J. in the case of (1) Chandi Charan Dhar v. General Manager. Eastern Railway & Ors. (Civil Rule No. 519 (W) of 1967). In that case, the petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Passenger Supervisor Class II and confirmed in that post, was appointed as Investigating Inspector in the Vigilance Branch on 5th March 1959. Thereafter, in April 1962, he was transferred back to his former post of Passenger Supervisor and again appointed under the Said Vigilance Organisation with effect from 19th September 1963 in an officiating capacity. The petitioner has alleged that since he discharged his duties in the said Organisation without fear or favour, he incurred the displeasure of the authorities concerned and as such, they, without any bonafide reasons or justifiable cause got him superseded in the matter of promotion to the next higher grades and also to revert him ultimately from his post in the Vigilance Organisation to that of Ticket Collector Grade A. He further submitted the action so taken, to be violative of Article 311 (2) and principles of natural justice. In that case, the Respondents, amongst others contended that the petitioner's appointment in the Vigilance Organisation was a case of deputation for a tenure and since he was released from such post on completion of the tenure, so no interference with the impugned order was called for. It has been held in that case by the learned Judge on consideration of the relevant facts and records, that the post of Vigilance Inspector was a tenure post and even if it is assumed that the tenure system was introduced subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, he acquired no right to hold the post and cannot complain if the Board had decided that no investigating officer should remain in the Vigilance Organisation for more than three years. It has also been held that no formality would be required for transferring such an officer back to his parent department after he completes his tenure of three years, whether there is any allegation of inefficiency or otherwise against him. 14. Mr. Basu next relied on another unreported judgment of this Court dated 10th September 1969, made by B.C. Mitra J. in the case of Nageswar Singh v. General Manager, Eastern Railway (Civil Rule No. 1358 (W) of 1967). In that case, in July 1953, the petitioner was appointed as a guard Grade 'C' in the pay scale of Rs. 80-170/-. On December 1, 1961, he was appointed to officiate as Vigilance Sub-Inspector in the grade of Rs. 205-280/-. and by an order of 18th December 1962, he was appointed to officiate as Vigilance Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 250-380/-. It has also been alleged in that case that because of certain reports made by the petitioner various secrets were unearthed against several Railway employees in addition to one Dr. Bose and as such a conspiracy was hatched to victimise him and as a result thereof he was reverted from the post of Vigilance inspector in the scale of Rs. 250380/-, to the post of Guard and ultimately he was spared from the Vigilance Organisation. It appears further that in that case the petitioner preferred an appeal and as a result thereof he was posted back to the Vigilance Organisation. But thereafter, again on 19th November 1965, he was transferred from the Vigilance Department to the Department under Divisional Superintendent, Danopur. It appears further that in that case the petitioner preferred an appeal and as a result thereof he was posted back to the Vigilance Organisation. But thereafter, again on 19th November 1965, he was transferred from the Vigilance Department to the Department under Divisional Superintendent, Danopur. Thereafter, by another order dated 24th November 1965, he was reverted to the post of Guard 'C'. Such order of reversion, was contended to be malafide but that contention was of course negatived. In that case amongst others, a Circular of the Railway Board dated 10th January 1965, whereby it was decided that the tenure of all investigating staff working in the Vigilance Organisation to be of three years, came up for consideration and it has been held that the post of Inspector, Vigilance Organisation is a tenure post and the earlier determination of this Court in the case of Chandi Charan Dhar v. General Manager, Eastern Railway (supra) was noted and followed. It has also been held that merely because the order of transfer was not made on the expiry of three years it could not be construed that the Respondents were precluded from making an order of transfer after \he expiry of that period. 15. Mr. Basu lastly relied on another unreported decision of this Court dated 22nd February 1972, made by Sabayasachi Mukherji J. in the case of (3) Kanti Gupta alias Kanti Bhusan Gupta (Civil Rule No. 875 (W) of 1966). The petitioner in that case was first employed as an Watchman in the Watch and Ward Department, East Indian Railway, Dhanbad, which department was renamed' as Railway Protection Force. After several promotions the petitioner was ultimately confirmed as Havildar. After the formation of the Anti-Corruption Organisation and setting up of the Vigilance Organisation, the petitioner along with others, was transferred to the said Organisation and thereafter the petitioner was promoted as a Watcher in a higher scale. The petitioner contended that as because of reports made by him, some embarrassment was caused to the Vigilance Officer, he became enemical to him and the said Vigilance Officer secured his transfer order, as a result whereof the petitioner, by an order dated 2nd May 1966, was released from the Vigilance Organisation and was transferred to his post of Havildar. The petitioner contended that as because of reports made by him, some embarrassment was caused to the Vigilance Officer, he became enemical to him and the said Vigilance Officer secured his transfer order, as a result whereof the petitioner, by an order dated 2nd May 1966, was released from the Vigilance Organisation and was transferred to his post of Havildar. The petitioner, in the background of the case contended the said order to be an order of reversion and bad as the procedure as laid down in Article 311 (2) were not complied with. The petitioner also contended in the alternative that the entire action was void since he could not be reverted in the manner in which the same was done as he admittedly put in more than 18 months continuous service in the said Vigilance Organisation. The contentions about the application of Article 311 (2) or the principles relating thereto, were overruled by the learned Judge and it has further been held that the Vigilance Organisation was set up with people from different departments of the Railways to meet a particular type of contingency, that is to say, to create a check against violation of the rules and crimes by the employees of the Railways. Any employee of other department who goes to the Vigilance Organisation has no right to remain permanently in the said Organisation. It has also been held that it is undesirable that people should for any length of time remain in the Vigilance Organisation as that would be destructive of the purposes for which the said Organisation has been set up. The case of Nageswar Singh v. General Manager, Eastern Railway & Ors. (supra) was referred to and relied on by the learned Judge. 16. Thus on the basis of the determinations as mentioned hereinbefore and which, as a Judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction, are binding on me and even on consideration of the pleadings of the parties in this case and the evidence as available, I have to hold and I hold as such that the post of the Vigilance Inspector, which the petitioner at all material times held, was a tenure pos; and he acquired no right to hold such post permanently and possibly he cannot maintain any grievance in the instant case. The Vigilance Department of the Railway is composed of staff drafted from one or other of the parent departments of the Railway and as such also when employees, on completion of the tenure or thereafter, are sent back to their parent department, that cannot be called or termed as unauthorised. An employee on joining the said Organisation has no right to be there permanently. Although no investigating officer, in terms of the Railway Board's directions, should be allowed to remain in the Vigilance Organisation for more than three years, the petitioner cannot maintain any claim or contend that since he was or has admittedly been allowed to serve for more than the tenure period, i. e. about nine years in this case, cannot be reverted to his substantive post. Merely because an order of transfer to the parent department has not been made on the expiry of the tenure, could not be construed as a bar to the Respondents' power in making an order of transfer subsequently. Furthermore, no imputation of mala fide can be imported when such an order is made even after the expiry of the period of tenure. In any event after completion of the tenure, no formality is generally, required to be followed for simply transferring an employee back to his parent department. Rule 121 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I, provides that the President may declare posts outside the cadre of regular service to be a tenure post. Tenure post has been defined in Rule 2003 (30) of Volume II of the said Code and means a permanent post which and Individual Railway Servant may not hold for more than a limited period and a permanent post has been defined in Rule 2003 (22) of the said Volume, to mean a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned without limit of time. The post of Inspector of the Vigilance Organisation is a non-gazetted post outside the cadre of regular service and as stated hereinbefore is a tenure post. Furthermore, Rule 9 (30A) of the Fundamental Rules, has recorded a Presidential decision to the effect that a non-gazetted post outside the cadre of a regular service can be declared to be a tenure post. Furthermore, Rule 9 (30A) of the Fundamental Rules, has recorded a Presidential decision to the effect that a non-gazetted post outside the cadre of a regular service can be declared to be a tenure post. It is in the background of the Rules in the Railway Establishment Code, the President's decision and the Circulars as mentioned above, the said Vigilance Organisation should be deemed to be a temporary one and the post which the petitioner held, to be a tenure post. Thus in the facts of this case I am also of the view that Article 311 (2) bas no application at all. The submissions of Mr. Menon that the option as Was exercised by the petitioner without knowing the terms of the Same and more particularly when such terms were not made known to the petitioner by the authorities concerned before the exercise of such opinion, has created great prejudice and hardship to the petitioner have great force. But since the jurisdiction I am exercising is very limited, and there is no scope for consideration of such hardship, I am not in a position to entertain any claim on that basis. 17. Now on the other question of fixing appropriate seniority of the petitioner in the higher grade or for placing him in the same, on the basis of the submissions as noted hereinbefore, I am also of the view that since the basis of the contentions as raised by the petitioner are disputed, so I shall not also be justified in entering into such disputed questions of fact in this jurisdiction. 18. In view of the above, the points raised by the petitioner fail. The application is thus dismissed and consequently the Rule is discharged, There will however be no order for costs.