JUDGMENT 1. - Madanlal, the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is an employee of the Northern Railway. He joined the service in 1951 as basic carpenter in the Northern Railway Workshop at Jodhpur. In 1956 he was promoted as skilled carpenter and was working in the carpenter shop. By circular, dated 16th November, 1967, the Works Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur, invited applications from skilled carpenters who were conversant with and interested with the fitting work of skilled fitters and who were desirous to have their designation changed from skilled carpenters to that of skilled fitters (Carriage and Wagon). In the said circular, it was stated that the applicants would be trade tested for skilled fitter (Carriage and Wagon) trade before their change is affected and that the request once exercised and accepted by the Administration would be final and they would in future, have their avenue of promotion in fitters (C. & W.) trade. In response to the aforesaid circular, the petitioner submitted an application and after passing the required trade test, the petitioner was designated as skilled fitter (C. & W.) by order dated 7th February, 1968, with immediate effect. The combined provisional seniority list of all skilled (C. & W.) fitters of Northern Railway, Workshop, Jodhpur was issued by the Works Manager on 18th December, 1968 and in the said provisional seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 3. By order dated 28th October, 1972, the petitioner was provisionally confirmed in the trade of Fitter (C & W.) with effect from 1st October, 19/2. By order dated 10th July, 1973, the petitioner along with 14 other persons, who were earlier working as skilled carpenters and who had been designated as skilled fitters C. & W ), were re-designated as carpenters and were reassigned their original seniority in the carpenters trade from the date of their entrance in the skill trade and the names of these persons were deleted from the provisionally seniority list dated 18th December. 1968 issued in respect of skilled fitters (C. & W.). As a result of the aforesaid notification dated 10th July, 1973, the petitioner stood re-transferred to the carpenters shop where he was working as skilled carpenter prior to his transfer to the carriage and wagon shop in pursuance of the order dated 7th February, 1968. 1968 issued in respect of skilled fitters (C. & W.). As a result of the aforesaid notification dated 10th July, 1973, the petitioner stood re-transferred to the carpenters shop where he was working as skilled carpenter prior to his transfer to the carriage and wagon shop in pursuance of the order dated 7th February, 1968. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10th July, 1973, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that while he was working as fitter (C. & W.), 108 Titters (C. & W.) were called for interview/for promotion to the post of Ministry (C. & W.) and that on the basis of the said interview respondents Nos. 3 to 8, who were junior to the petitioner in the provisional seniority list dated 18th December, 1968 for skilled (C. & W ) fitters, were promoted as Ministries (C. & W.) and that the petitioner, even though he was senior-to the said respondents according to the seniority list dated 18th Dec., 1968, was not even called for the said interview. In this regard the petitioner has further submitted that amongst the persons who were called for interview for promotion to the post of Ministry (C. & W.) included Shri Ladhu Ram, who was a skilled carpenter like the petitioner and who had been designated as fitter (C & W) alongwith the petitioner by order dated 7th Feb, 1968. The case of the petitioner is that the promotion of respondents Nos 3 to 8 as Ministries (C & W) was in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In his writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification dated 10th July, 1973, on the ground that by the aforesaid order the future chances of promotion of the petitioner have been adversely affected and that the said order could not have been passed without affording to the petitioner to an opportunity of being heard and that such an opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner before the order dated 10th July, 1973 was passed. In the writ petition the petitioner has further submitted that the order dated 10th July, 1973, re-designating the petitioner as skilled carpenter is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution for the reason that persons who were junior to the petitioner in the carpenter shop had been promoted as Ministries during the period the petitioner was working as Fitter in the carriage and wagon section and that as a result of the impugned order, the petitioner has suffered in the matter of his promotion at both the places, i.e in the carriage and wagons shop as well as in the carpenters shop In support of his submission aforesaid, the petitioner has stated that respondents Nos. 9 toll, were junior to hira in the carpenters trade but respondent No. 9 has been promoted to the post of Ministry and respondents Nos. 10 and 11 had been promoted as Highly Skilled Grade-II. 3. In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it has been submitted that the transfer of the petitioner from carpenter trade to titter (C & W) trade as a result of the order dated 7th February, 1968 had been made on provisional basis and that after the petitioner and other skilled carpenters bad been transferred as fitters (C & W), the staff of (C & W) fitter trade had represented through the recognised unions that on account of transfer of these carpenters as C & W fitters, their future advancement had been blocked and that taking into consideration the aforesaid representation, it was decided by the Competent Authority, in consultation with the staff representatives, that the carpenters, including the petitioner, would be re-transferred to the carpenters trade and that they would have their seniority and future advancement in their original trade i.e. carpenters and that of the order dated 10th July, 1973, was passed in consequence of the aforesaid decision. As regards the promotions which were made on the posts of Ministry (C. & W.) during the period the petitioner was working as fitter (C. & W.), it has been submitted on behalf of respondents Nos. As regards the promotions which were made on the posts of Ministry (C. & W.) during the period the petitioner was working as fitter (C. & W.), it has been submitted on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that in view of the representation of the staff of C. & W. fitter trade against carpenters being designated as C. & W. fitters the issue was under consideration of the Railway Administration, and therefore, the names of the petitioner and other carpenters who had been designated as fitters (C. & W.) were not included in the list of 108 C. & W. fitters who were called for interview for promotion to the posts of Ministry (C. & W.). In the reply, respondents Nos. I & 2 have further stated that the names of Laxman and Ladhuram, who like the petitioner were designated from carpenters trade to C. & W. fitter trade, had been erroneously included in the said list of 108 C. & W. fitters and that when the said error came to the notice, the aforesaid two employees were not tested for the post of Ministry. With regard to the complaint of the petitioner about the promotion of persons junior to him in the carpenter trade during the period he was working as fitter (C. & W.), it has been submitted in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents Nos 1 and 2 that the posts against which the junior persons, viz., respondents Nos. 9 to 11, were promoted were ex-cadre posts and that the petitioner was also eligible to apply for those posts but he did not do so inspite of the circulars, inviting applications for the said purpose and that the promotion of persons junior to the petitioner on those ex-cadres posts did not in any way affect the inter se-seniority of the petitioner and the said respondents and that those persons who are serving on the ex-cadre posts would remain junior to the petitioner on the carpenter shop floor. 4. After the arguments in the writ petition had been heard and the judgement had been reserved, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to amend the writ petition to urge an additional ground that the Deputy Chief Mech. 4. After the arguments in the writ petition had been heard and the judgement had been reserved, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to amend the writ petition to urge an additional ground that the Deputy Chief Mech. Engineer (W), Northern Railway, Jodhpur who had passed the order dated 10th July, 1973, was not competent to pass the said order in view of the circular dated 9th September, 1969 issued by the Railway Board. The petitioner was permitted to amend the writ petition so as to add the said additional ground in the writ petition and further arguments were heard on the said additional ground. 5. I will first deal with the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the validity of the order dated 10th July, 1973. The first submission relates to the competence of the Dy. C.M.E.(W), Northern Railway, Jodhpur to pass the said order dated 10th July, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the power to transfer Railway servants is contained in Rule 2011 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and that Appendix XXXII to the Indian Railway Establishment Code prescribes the authorities to whom the power conferred by Rule 2011 has been delegated. By the circular of the Railway Board dated 13th February, 1968, the power to transfer Class III or Class IV staff has been delegated to Senior Scale/Assistant Officers. By circular of the Railway Board dated 9th September, 1969, it was clarified that the intention of the Railway Board in giving powers to Senior Scale/Assistant Officers under Appendix XXXII and Rule 2011 is to transfer a person from one post to another post in the same department/category and that where change of Department/Category was involved, the power would be exercised by Heads of the Department in the case of Class III Staff and the Divisional Superintendent in the case of Class IV staff. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post of skilled carpenters and fitters (C. & W.) are class 111 posts falling in different categories and that the Head of the Department alone was competent to pass an order for the transfer of the petitioner from the post of fitter (C. & W.) to the post of skilled carpenter. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is further that Head of the Department is defined in Rule 2202(9) read with Appendix XXXVIII of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and that Deputy Chief Mech Engineer (W) is not one of the officers who have been declared to be Heads of Departments in Appendix XXXVIII, under Rule 2202(9). 6. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 & 2 has, on the other hand submitted that Northern Railway Workshop at Jodhpur is one department which consists of a number of Sections or shops and the transfer of the petitioner from one Section of the workshop to another Section of the said workshop could not be regarded as a transfer from Department to another Department On behalf of the respondents, it is further submitted that the post of carpenter as well as fitter (C & W.) fall in the same category viz , skilled artisans and that the impugned order dated 10th July 1973, did not involve the transfer of the petitioner from a post in one category to a post in the other category. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the circular dated 9th September, 1969, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner has no application to the present case that the Dy. Chief Mech. Engineer (W), who is a Junior Administrative Officer higher in rank to Senior Scale Officer mentioned in Appendix XXXIT, was, therefore, entitled to pass the order dated 10th July, 1973 regarding the transfer of the petitioner under the Rules framed under the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The respondents have also filed a chart showing the revised cadre of the Northern Railway Workshop. Jodhpur with effect from 26th November/lst December, 1972 In the said chart the cadre strength of the various categories of the staff in each shop are set out. According to the said chart the workers are classified in Grade-I, Grade-11, Skilled, Semiskilled and Unskilled categories. 7. Jodhpur with effect from 26th November/lst December, 1972 In the said chart the cadre strength of the various categories of the staff in each shop are set out. According to the said chart the workers are classified in Grade-I, Grade-11, Skilled, Semiskilled and Unskilled categories. 7. Provision for transfer of a railway servant is made in Rule 2011 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code which lays down that a competent authority may transfer a railway servant from one post to another and further provides that a railway servant shall not be transferred substantively to or appointed to officiate in a post carrying less pay than the pay of the permanent post in which he holds a lien except on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour or on his written request. Competent authority in relation to the aforesaid rule has been defined in Rule 2003 51 to mean the President or any authority to which such power is delegated in Appendix XXXII. In item (5) of Appendix XXXII the power conferred by rule 2011 is delegated to all heads of the department and the Deputy General Manager and Divisional Superintendents are delegated the said power in respect of post under their control. By circular dated 1st February, 1968 issued by the Railway Board the said power with regard to transfer of Class III and Class IV staff from one post to another has also been delegated to Senior Scale and Assistant Officers respectively. By Circular dated 22nd March, 1961 the Railway Board had clarified that in exercise of the power of transfer which has been delegated to him the Divisional Superintendent is competent to transfer a railway servant, on his request, from one post to another in different category, as are within his control. Rule 147 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code lays down that persons employed in one department shall not he eligible for employment in another, except with the previous consent of the head of department in which they are employed. By circular of the Railway Board dated 6th August, 1966 the said Rule was amended whereby ii was provided that the Divisional Superintendent could transfer Class IV Railway Servants from one Department to another or from one Division to another without consulting the Head of Department. By circular of the Railway Board dated 6th August, 1966 the said Rule was amended whereby ii was provided that the Divisional Superintendent could transfer Class IV Railway Servants from one Department to another or from one Division to another without consulting the Head of Department. As a result of the circulars aforesaid a doubt was raised as to whether the delegation of powers under the circular dated 1st February, 1968 empowers Senior Scale/Assistant Officers to permit transfer of Class if and IV staff from one category to another on request. To remove these doubts the Railway Board issued the circular dated 9th September, 1969 whereby it was clarified that the intention of the Railway Board 'in giving powers to Senior Scale/Assistant Officers under Appendix XXXII and Rule 2011 is to transfer a person from one post to another post in the same department/category and that where a change of department/category is involved the powers will be exercised by the Heads of Departments in the case of Class 111 staff and Divisional Superintendents in the case of Class IV Staff. A perusal of the aforesaid circular dated 9th September 1969 and the background in which it was issued leads to the inference that the said circular relates to cases of transfer of Class HI and IV Staff from one category to another on request only and that it is not apply to normal transfers from one post to another. Even if it be assumed that the circular dated 9th September, 1969 has the effect of restricting the powers of transfer delegated to Senior Scale/Assistant Officer to transferring a person from one post to another post in the same department/ category, the question which arises is whether as a result of the impugned order of transfer there has been a change of Department or a change of category of the post held by the petitioner. The chart (Annexure RIO) relating to the Revised Cadre of the Northern Railway Workshop at Jodhpur show that the Workshop consists of number of shops where different types of jobs are done and some of the shops are further sub-divided into Sections. By way of illustration it may be pointed out that the Paint Shop contains Paint Loco Section, Paint Coach Section, Paint Wagon Section and the Miscellaneous Section. By way of illustration it may be pointed out that the Paint Shop contains Paint Loco Section, Paint Coach Section, Paint Wagon Section and the Miscellaneous Section. In my opinion the whole workshop is one department and it is not possible to accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that each shop in the workshop is a separate department. It cannot, therefore, be said that the transfer of the petitioner from the Carriage and Wagon Shop to the Carpenter Shop, under the impugned order, involves a change of department. Nor does the said transfer, in my view, involves a change in the category of the posts. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the post of Skilled Carpenter and the post of skilled fitter fall in different categories. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out the two categories in which the aforesaid two posts fall. The said contention of the learned counsel in substance is that skilled carpenter constitutes one category and skilled fitter constitutes another category. The said contention treats each post as a different category and obliterates the distinction between the category which consists of a number of similar posts and a post which falls in the said category. The Chart (Annexure R-10) relating to the revised cadre of the Northern Railway Workshop (gives the break up of the various posts in each shop and in the said chart the posts of the various type of workers, viz direct Workers, essential indirect workers and indirect workers, have been divided into Grade 1, Grade II, skilled, Semi-Skilled and unskilled posts This shows that the posts in the workshop are divided into the aforesaid categories of posts. The post of Skilled carpenter and Skilled fitter fall in the category of Skilled artisans and the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Skilled fitter to the post of Skilled carpenter does not involve a change in category and the circular dated 9th September. 1969 has no application to the present case. The post of Skilled carpenter and Skilled fitter fall in the category of Skilled artisans and the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Skilled fitter to the post of Skilled carpenter does not involve a change in category and the circular dated 9th September. 1969 has no application to the present case. The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer(v) who is a junior Administrative Officer and is higher in rank to a Senior Scale Officer to whom the power of transfer under Rule 20 (ii) has been delegated in Appendix XXXII, and he was, therefore, competent to pass the said order The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the competence of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (W) to pass the order dated 10th July, 1973, is, therefore, rejected. 8. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the validity of the order dated 10th July, 1973, is that the said order prejudicial affected the rights of the petitioner and that before passing the said order, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 2 to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to show-cause against the passing of the said order and that such an opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. In my view, there is no merit in the aforesaid contention. From the seniority list dated 18th December, 1968 and the order of confirmation dated 28th October, 1972, it is clear that the petitioner's appointment as fitter (C and vv) was of a provisional nature only and that the petitioner had not been permanently absorbed in the cadre of fitter (C and W). The re-designation of the petitioner as skilled carpenter, which post he was holding prior to his designation as fitter (C and W) under order dated 7th February, 1968, therefore, does not affect the rights of the petitioner. Moreover in the order dated 10th July, 1973, it is expressly stated that the petitioner and other 14 persons who had been re-designated as skilled carpenters were being reassigned their original seniority in the carpenters trade from the date of their entrance in the skilled grade. Moreover in the order dated 10th July, 1973, it is expressly stated that the petitioner and other 14 persons who had been re-designated as skilled carpenters were being reassigned their original seniority in the carpenters trade from the date of their entrance in the skilled grade. This shows that the re-designation of the petitioner as skilled carpenter, does not in any way affect the seniority or chances of promotion of the petitioner in the cadre of carpenters and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order dated 10th July, 1973, prejudicially affects the rights of the petitioner and it was necessary to afford a hearing to the petitioner before the passing of the said order. 9. The third contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working as fitter (C and W) respondents Nos. 3 to 8, who were shown as junior to the petitioner in the provisional seniority list of fitters (C & W), were promoted as Ministries (C & W) without the petitioner being considered for promotion to the said post and (hat the petitioner was denied equality in the matter of employment which is guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution In view of my finding that the designation of the petitioner as fitter (C & W) was of a provisional nature only and the petitioner had not been absorbed permanently in the cadre of fitters ( C. & W.) and the fact that at the time when the interview of fitters (C & W) for promotion to the post of Ministry (C & W) was held the Government was reconsideration the question as to whether the petitioner should be retained as fitter (C & W) or should be re-transferred as skilled carpenter, it cannot be said that the non-consideration of the name of the petitioner for promotion for the post of Ministry (C & W) was violative of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If the petitioner had been considered for the post of Ministry (C & W) the said consideration would have been open to challenge on the ground of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution at the instance of persons who were substantively employed as fitters (C & W) and in my view, the non-consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Ministry (C & W) at the time when respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were considered for promotion to the said post, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 10. In this context, the petitioner has also complained that two other persons, viz., Ladhu Ram and Laxman, who were originally working as skilled carpenters in the carpenter shop and who were designated as fitters (C & W) alongwith the petitioner, were considered for promotion for the post of Ministry (C & W) while the petitioner was left out. There is no substance in the aforesaid complaint. From the reply filed on behalf of the respondents.it appears that the names of Laxman and Ladhu Ram had been erroneously included in the list of 108 (C & W) fitters who were called for the interview vide letter dated 1st June, 1970 for promotion to the post of Ministry (C & W) and that when the aforesaid error came to the notice of the authorities the aforesaid two employees were not tested. This shows that the aforesaid employees were also not considered for promotion to the post of Ministry (C & W) and the petitioner cannot have any grievance that he alone bad been discriminated in the matter of being excluded from consideration for promotion to the post of Ministry (C & W) while he was working as filter (C&W). 11. The last contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that while he was working as fitter (C&W) a number of persons i.e. respondents Nos. 9 to 11, who were junior to him in the carpenter shop have been promoted to higher posts and that as a result of his designation as fitter (C & W) and re-designation as skilled carpenter, the petitioner has suffered prejudice in the matter of promotion. There is no merit in the aforesaid contention also inasmuch as in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that respondents Nos. There is no merit in the aforesaid contention also inasmuch as in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that respondents Nos. 9 to 11 have been promoted on Ex-cadre posts and that the aforesaid promotion of the said respondents does not in any way affect the inter-se seniority of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 9 to 11 who continue to remain junior to the petitioner on the carpenter shop floor. In this regard, it may be observed that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that it was open to the petitioner also to have applied for promotion to those Ex-cadre posts but he did not do so in response to the circulars which were issued inviting applications for those posts. The petitioner cannot, therefore, make any grievance as regards the promotion of respondents Nos. 9 to 11 on the Ex-cadre posts held by them. 12. No other contention was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. In the result it must be held that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs in this writ petition.Petition dismissed. *******