JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - The petitioner sought a direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 4-8-1982 of demotion passed by respondent No. 2 (General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur) against the petitioner by which the petitioner was demoted to the post of Assistant Divisional Medical Officer from the post of Divisional Medical Officer ; mandamus is also sought commanding the respondents not to revert the petitioner from the aforesaid post of Divisional Medical Officer to the post of Assistant Medical Officer, North Eastern Railway Hosiptal, Izatnagar, Bareilly ; costs of this petition were also claimed. 2. The petitioner alleged that he was appointed as Assistant Surgeon Grade I in the scale Rs. 335-650 on 20th June, 1961 in the Central Railway after due selection by Railway Service Commission as he was a specialist being M. S. with subject (Orthopaedics) and had advanced training the said subject. So he was given three advance increments at the time of his appointment. He was promoted as Assistant Medical Officer, Class-TI on 12-7-1965 in scale (Rs. 700-1600). 3. He was transferred to North Eastern Railway Administration in February, 1980. Both these administrations are controlled by Railway Board New Delhi. 4. In the seniority list published by Central Railway Administration in 1978 as given on page 54 his seniority was at serial No. 3 as detailed in para 3 of the petition. Dr. S. K. Acharya, Dr. P. C. Mukherjee and Dr. A. C. Jauhari were placed below him and are working as Divisional Medical Offices. 5. The petitioner was appointed as Divisional Medical Officer in the North Eastern Railway vide letter dated 25-10-1980 (Annexure-2) on the basis of his seniority. It was a clear vacancy caused by the death of one Dr. Harishwar Sahai. 6. This appointment from 22-11-1980 continued till the impugned order dated 4-8-1982 was recorded by respondent No. 2 by which petitioner was reverted in the junior Grade of Assistant Divisional Medical Officer vide Annexure-5. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents it was maintained that the seniority lists of promotion up to the post of Divisional Medical Officer were maintained Zone-wise and so seniority of petitioner in the Central Railway was irrelevant. 8. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents it was maintained that the seniority lists of promotion up to the post of Divisional Medical Officer were maintained Zone-wise and so seniority of petitioner in the Central Railway was irrelevant. 8. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon Grade I on 20th June, 1961 ; Sri S. K. Acharya was appointed as Assistant Surgeon Grade 1 on 15th February, 1959 and both of them were promoted Assistant Medical Officer Grade II with effect from 1-1-1966 and were promoted as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer Class I with effect from 1-1-1973. Thus Dr. Acharya is senior to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has to seek his promotion in North Eastern Railway only according to seniority list maintained there. 10. Seniority is not claimable on the basis of some advance increments being granted to the officer at the time of his appointment. In term of Rule 302 of Railway Establishment Manual, seniority is to be determined on the basis of appointment in the initial Grade. 11. It appears that on account of some error in the seniority list petitioner was promoted as Assistant Medical Officer, Class II post on an ad hoc basic. The mere fact that petitioner officiated on ad hoc basic for more than three months could not confer any title on the petitioner to become permanent automatically on that post. His promotion as Divisional Medical Officer was also wholly illegal and unjustified and Was on ad hoc basis and did not entitle the petitioner to claim permanency on the spot. As petitioner had been promoted as Divisional Medical Officer on erroneous facts so his promotion was void and illegal. 12. Dr. G. C. Srivastava, respondent 5 made a representation in connection with his seniority and his representation was accepted and he was assigned his position in the correct seniority list. 13. Order of reversion of petitioner dated 4-4-1982 could not be impeached on account of his representation and (sic) the Chief Personnel Officer. The representation of petitioner was rejected after due consideration by the Railway Board. His promotion as Assistant Medical Officer on ad hoc selection could not confer any benefit on him. 14. It was denied that the reversion of petitioner to the post of Assistant Divisional Medical Officer amounted to any reduction in rank or was made as a measure of punishment. 15. His promotion as Assistant Medical Officer on ad hoc selection could not confer any benefit on him. 14. It was denied that the reversion of petitioner to the post of Assistant Divisional Medical Officer amounted to any reduction in rank or was made as a measure of punishment. 15. It was further maintained that the seniority list published by the Central Railway was not final and was subject to review and alteration. Dr. S. K. Acharya was senior to petitioner as laid in para 19 of the counter-affidavit. Similarly Dr. G. C. Srivastava was senior to Dr. S. M. Chaturvedi as explained in para 20 of the counter-affidavit. 16. Thus the alleged promotion of petitioner as Divisional Medical Officer was erroneous when Dr. G. C. Srivastava who was already senior to him was working as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer in North Eastern Railway at the time of the said promotion. Along with the counter-affidavit respondents also filed the guidelines adopted by the Board in reviewing the seniority list of Assistant Medical Officers. They also filed a seniority list of Assistant Divisional Medical Officers Class-1 which did not show the name of petitioner or Dr. G. C. Srivastava anywhere in that list. 17. The petitioner amended his petition and impleaded respondent No. 6 to 32 on 30-8-1982. It was alleged that on account of inadvertence the aforesaid respondents could not be impleaded as opposite parties. 18. Further prayers sought by the petitioner were added to the following effect :- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order determining and altering the petitioner's seniority by respondents No. 1 to 4. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the altered seniority position of the petitioner and to revert the petitioner from the post of Divisional Medical Officer on the basis of the order dated 3-8-1982" 19. In his affidavit annexed with the amendment application it was disclosed that petitioner continued to function as Assistant Medical Officer in Class II from 12-7-1965 up to 1-1-1973. He was again promoted as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer vide letter dated 28-1-1977 (Annexure 6). Thus while he was working as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer in Class I in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 (vide Annexure 6) he was promoted as Divisional Medical Officer with effect from 22-11-1980. 20. He was again promoted as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer vide letter dated 28-1-1977 (Annexure 6). Thus while he was working as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer in Class I in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 (vide Annexure 6) he was promoted as Divisional Medical Officer with effect from 22-11-1980. 20. It was further maintained that there are nine permanent and four temporary posts of Divisional Medical Officers in the senior scale. There are also 23 upgraded posts of Divisional Medical Officers in senior scale existing in North Eastern Railway Establishment. Thus in view of his seniority the petitioner was appointed as Divisional Medical Officer in the vacancy caused by the death of Dr. H.K. Sahai, 21. One affidavit by Sri L. A. Khan on behalf of respondents was filed on 8-9-1982. In his affidavit he mentioned that no person Junior to the petitioner was working as Divisional Medical Officer at Izatnagar. He also filed copies of representations of Dr. G. C. Srivastava and petitioner and it was alleged that the seniority position was communicated by the Central Railway vide letter dated 5-11-1981 (Annexure-A) which shows that Dr. G. C. Srivastava was appointed on 10-6-1961 while the petitioner was appointed on 20-6-1961 as Assistant Surgeon in Class III. Dr. G. C. Srivastava was placed at serial No. 87 according to the seniority list of Assistant Surgeons while the petitioner was placed at serial No. 113. It was for this reason that the claim of petitioner was not acceptable to the Board. 22. A supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner to traverse the allegations made in the counter-affidavit. It was maintained that his lien in Central Railway still continues and Dr. H. K. Acharya, Dr. P. C. Mukherji and Dr. A. C. Jauhari who are junior to him in the seniority list were already working on the post of Divisional Medical Officer. The petitioner also offered to be sent back to Central Railway, he further maintained that in 1981 a classified list of Gazetted Establishment of Indian Railways with regard to Central Railway was published in which Dr. G.K. Balani and Dr. (Mrs), I. Sethi were placed above the petitioner on account of ; their higher qualifications, although they were junior to the petitioner on the basis of length of their service. G.K. Balani and Dr. (Mrs), I. Sethi were placed above the petitioner on account of ; their higher qualifications, although they were junior to the petitioner on the basis of length of their service. It was wrong that the seniority of officers having their lien in the Central Railway was not to be considered at) the time of their promotion in North Eastern Railway. The promotion of petitioner to the post of Assistant Medical Officer was with effect from 12-7-1965 and not with effect from 1-1-1966 as was wrongly maintained by the railway administration. His promotion was never on ad hoc basis on account of any error in the seniority list of Assistant Medical Officers. He also filed a photostat copy of seniority list of Assistant Divisional Medical Officers circulated in 1981 showing that the petitioner is senior to Dr. G. C. Srivastava and other respondents. He further maintained that there were several officers below the petitioner who were running in the scale of Divisional Medical Officer and, so the mere fact that one post has been downgraded by the department could not justify the reversion of petitioner. 23. It was further maintained that the petitioner was never served with any notice to show cause while altering his seniority in the proposed list; no opportunity was afforded to him to submit his reply and so such alteration of seniority behind his back in utter disregard of natural justice was void and illegal. 24. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 25. On behalf of the petitioner it was successfully argued before us that respondents Nor. 9 to 28 and some others except respondents Nos. 16, 22 and 26 were also promoted on the upgraded post of Divisional Medical Officer as stop-gap local arrangement in North Eastern Railway vide order No. 198 by order of General Manager No. E/41/14/7(l) dated 19-1-1981 and later on by another North Eastern Railway order No. 193, four Assistant Medical Officers were promoted on the post of Divisional Medical Officers after post was upgraded on ad hoc basis by order of General Manager No. Ka/210/10/Part-8(l)dated 14-12-1981 vide Annexures SA-1 and SA-2 and the aforesaid incumbents were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Medical Officer and Assistant Divisional Medical Officer at North Eastern Railway Establishment and so the petitioner could not be ranked below them. Having regard to his seniority as shown in the classified list of Gazetted Establishment of Indian Railways published in January, 1981 for North Eastern Railways Establishment the order of demotion is unsustainable. 26. In the earlier seniority list he had been repeatedly shown as senior to Dr. G. C. Srivastava and that seniority should not have been altered on the basis of any representation by respondent No. 5 unless the petitioner had been aware of the same and had been afforded an opportunity to shew cause against it. The determination of petitioner's seniority by respondents without affording him an opportunity was void and illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. 27. It appears that the seniority list in 1981 had been prepared earlier to the said alteration and was favourable to the petitioner and their alteration now without hearing the petitioner has operated to his prejudice. 28. The mere fact that representation of petitioner had been rejected is not tentamount to the satisfaction of requirements of natural justice, 29. As the preparation of final classified seniority list of Indian Railway Medical Service North Eastern Railway involves several question of fact and may effect respondents Nos. 6 to 32 who are not before us by this time, so it is not possible for this Court to conveniently adjudicate the validity of the seniority list relating to Assistant Divisional Medical Officer issued on 17-8-1981 (Annexure 2) of the counter-affidavit. 30. Petitioner did not want the proceedings to be prolonged further. So we refrain to express ourselves on merits further as we propose to remit Annexure 4 (Extract from C. R. Gazetted Cadre List, 1969) to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 for redetermination afresh. So Annexure 4 appended to the authorities concerned (Respondents Nos. 2 to 4) who shall duly circulate the proposed final list of the Medical Officers within one month from today and invite objections from the Officers concerned about the proposed alteration. After hearing the Officers concerned and disposal of their objections the proposed list shall be finalised as early as possible. 31. The petitioner shall continue to draw his salary in the scale of Rs. 1100-1800 of Divisional Medical Officers unless he loses his seniority in the final-list so as to be eligible for the said post. 32. In case the petitioner is found dis-entitled to be included in the list aforesaid his claim shall fail. 31. The petitioner shall continue to draw his salary in the scale of Rs. 1100-1800 of Divisional Medical Officers unless he loses his seniority in the final-list so as to be eligible for the said post. 32. In case the petitioner is found dis-entitled to be included in the list aforesaid his claim shall fail. The petition is disposed of accordingly.