JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - The appellant questions the fixation of his seniority vis-a-vis the respondents. 2. The parties are in the Indian Railways signal and Telecommunication Engineering Service, a Class Service (hereinafter called 'the Service'). The appellant was a special recruit to this Service. Respondents 3 to 8 came into the service by way of promotion, while respondents 9 to 12 were direct recruits to the Service. The appellant claimed to or senior to all these respondents. 3. His case was that the principle evolved by the Railway authorities for determining the seniority of members of the Service coming from different sources was discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 4. This plea was repelled by the learned single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition. The same point has been reiterated in this appeal. 5. Shri K. K. Gupta, the appellant, was employed on a Class II post in the Ministry of Communications. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission for special recruitment to the service, the appellant applied, was called for interview, and being successful in it, he was, by a letter dated 20th February, 1956. appointed as a temporary Assistant Signal Engineer, and he actually started working on that post from 4th July, 1956. With effect from 1st March, 1959, he was substantively appointed in the Service. 6. Respondents 9 to 12 are direct recruits to the Service They were appointed to the Service on different dates in the year 1957 and were placed on probation. On the expiry of three years period of probation they were confirmed. For purpose of seniority, they were deemed to have been appointed on the date when they initially joined the service, namely in 1957. 7. Respondents 3 to 8 were promotees from class II Service. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that as they have all retired or died, the appellant does not raise any dispute with regard to them in the present appeal. It is hence not necessary to give their biodata. 8. The conditions of service of members of the Service are governed by the Signal Engineering Department of the Superior Revenue Establishment of Indian Railway Recruitment Rules. It is hence not necessary to give their biodata. 8. The conditions of service of members of the Service are governed by the Signal Engineering Department of the Superior Revenue Establishment of Indian Railway Recruitment Rules. Rule 3 lays down three sources of recruitment :- (a) By competition, that is, direct recruitment, (b) by promotion of qualified class II officers, (c) by occasional admission of other qualified persons appointed by Government on the recommendation of the Commission. Paragraph 8 of Appendix IV to these Rules lays down the seniority rule for direct recruits. It says :- "The relative seniority of officers appointed under rule 3(a) will ordinarily be determined by their order of merit in the competitive examination. The Government of India, however, reserve the right of fixing seniority at their discretion in individual cases. They also reserve the right of assigning to officers appointed under Rules 3(b) and (c) and 4, position in the seniority list at their discretion." 9. The learned single Judge quashed the underlined portion of the aforesaid rules on the ground that it was discriminatory. The respondents have not filed any appeal to question that decision. The remaining part of Paragraph 8, however, confines itself to the seniority of direct recruits inter se . 10. The Railway Board issues circulars with regard to fixation of seniority of promotees (vide Annexure DD to the Writ Petition dated 7th March, 1955) and special promotees (Vide Annexure F to the writ petition dated 17th September, 1965). Both these circulars granted weightage to the promotees and special recruits. The weightage for promotees was half continuous officiating and permanent service in Class II, subject to a maximum of five years. The weightage granted to special recruits was half total number of years of continuous service in working post on Railways prior to their permanent absorption in Class I Service, subject to a maximum weightage of five years. 11. According to the respondents, Sri K.. K.. Gupta, the appellant, started working on a working post, on 4th October, 1957. The appellant challenges this. 12. The appellant has, by a supplementary affidavit filed in the appeal, brought to our notice a subsequent circular, the Railway Board dated 26th May, 1975. 11. According to the respondents, Sri K.. K.. Gupta, the appellant, started working on a working post, on 4th October, 1957. The appellant challenges this. 12. The appellant has, by a supplementary affidavit filed in the appeal, brought to our notice a subsequent circular, the Railway Board dated 26th May, 1975. By this circular, the weightage, which under the circular, dated 17th September, 1965, was to begin from the date of service in a working post, was changed, and now it was to begin from the date of joining service But the over all limit of five years was retained. 13. In view of this development it is unnecessary to decide the dispute whether the appellant started working on a working post since 4th October, 1957, or from an earlier date, because now the weightage is being given from the date of joining the Service. 14. Respondents 9 to 12, the direct recruits, were appointed on three years' probation, the first two years to be spent in training and the third year by working on a working post. By the letter dated 25th February, 1957, the Railway Board sanctioned creation of posts of probationers to cover the period of training of these direct recruits. Since they were holding a post in the service, the determination of their seniority with reference to the date of joining of their service is reasonable and proper. 15. The appellant claims that his seniority should have been determined on the same principle, i.e., from the date of joining the service. But the respondents had taken away a good deal of that service by confining the maximum weightage to five years. The appellant claims that he was already in service, though in Class II, and he had gained more experience than the direct recruits. 16. The direct recruits, on the other hand, claim that they were graduates in Engineering and that they had undergone training for two years, which the special recruits had not gone through. The rule of maximum weightage of five years is a compromise between these conflicting claims. 17. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the principle of giving weightage of five years to the special recruits and the promotees is, in the circumstances, reasonable. It is not arbitrary and hence does not violate Article 16 of the Constitution. 18. 17. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the principle of giving weightage of five years to the special recruits and the promotees is, in the circumstances, reasonable. It is not arbitrary and hence does not violate Article 16 of the Constitution. 18. For the appellant it was argued that the appellant crossed the efficiency bar before the direct recruits. He was given officiating appointment in the senior scale before the direct recruits. 19. As observed by the learned single Judge, events like crossing the efficiency bar and officiation in the senior scale are Railway wise, and not an all India basis. Further, they are not dependent upon seniority. Seniority in the service is determined on an All India basis. The fortuitous circumstance that a temporary vacancy occurs in a particular Railway earlier than in another Railway is neither material nor relevant for fixing the seniority of the members of the service. 20. The advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission for special recruitment specifically stated that seniority would count from the date of confirmation after substantive appointment of the service. It also made it clear that the selected persons, like the appellant, shall be eligible for being considered for absorption in the permanent vacancies in the service but only up to a maximum of two vacancies per year commencing from the recruitment to that Service on the result of the examination to be held in 1957. It is in one of these vacancies that the appellant was absorbed in the service. The direct recruits came in Service as a result of the examination held in 1955. The appellant was not of the same batch and cannot claim parity with the respondent-direct recruits, Further, the condition of determination of seniority mentioned in the advertisement was binding on the appellant. He could not, as a matter of right, claim determination of his seniority on any other principle. The Railway Board, however, granted to the appellant a favourable basis for fixing his seniority. They took into consideration his service prior to substantive appointment subject to a maximum of five years. The appellant, having taken benefit of this favour, cannot now turn found and challenge it. He was liable to be confined to the principle laid down in the advertisement, namely, that seniority would count from the date of confirmation, which was 17th August, 1960. The appellant, having taken benefit of this favour, cannot now turn found and challenge it. He was liable to be confined to the principle laid down in the advertisement, namely, that seniority would count from the date of confirmation, which was 17th August, 1960. We are hence not satisfied that there is any valid ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. 21. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.