G.M. LODHA, J.— "Taking passengers to death" by removing control, and yet the petitioners insistence for invoking Art. 226. 2. A controller of Railway boycotting control is like father or mother killing ones child in womb. 3. "Boycott" of Railway control phones and consequential putting railway moving engines out of control, exposes lacs of innocent citizens to risk of limb and life by accidents whether tantamount to boycotting "Safety" and encouraging Railway engine homicides by dereliction of duty suicide. 4. Railway Controllers putting railway out of control. Is it not a contradiction and paradox? 5. Are such citizens, guilty of such dangerous conduct unequitable and extraordinary method of exposing lacs of passengers to life hazardy, disentitled from invoking equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction. Would Article 226 also exhibit reluctance to such boycott of human safety and serious disruption of essential services ? These questions incidentally arise in this "boycott and transfer "litigation. 6. All the above five petitioners (Schedule A) are Station Masters in Railway. They claim to be office bearers of the All India Station Masters Association. It would be convenient to mention, in details, the facts of one of the first case of R.K. Bhatnagar who joined services as Asstt. Station Master in year 1952. He was promoted as Station Master in 1955 and was posted at Gegal Akhari in Jaipur Division. R.K. Bhatnagar, the petitioner, claims that he is Zonal Vice President of All India Station Masters Association in Jaipur. 7. Association submitted a charter of demands and, notice under Section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 1980. On 10th April, 1981, the petitioners and others boycotted control phone for 24 hours. 8. On 13th April, 1981, the petitioner- R.K. Bhatnagar was transferred to Bhavnagar Division and on 15th April, 1981, the transfer order was served on the petitioner. 9. In similar circumstances, other petitioners have also been transferred and all of them have challenged the transfer orders. All the petitioners have taken the following principals grounds in their writ petition: (1). Seniority of petitioner is maintained division-wise. There is no provision of transfer outside the division and the petitioner will loose seniority in case he is transferred to another division and as the chances of promotion of the petitioner will be affected, the transfer is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (2). Seniority of petitioner is maintained division-wise. There is no provision of transfer outside the division and the petitioner will loose seniority in case he is transferred to another division and as the chances of promotion of the petitioner will be affected, the transfer is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (2). The petitioner has a right to be considered in his own division for promotion to higher posts and by this transfer, he will be deprived of his right of consideration in his division. (3). All the persons working in Grade Rs. 425-640 boycotted the control telephone but only the petitioner has been picked up for the arbitrary treatment of transfer and this act is a clear act of victimisation. (4). There is no administrative exigencies or reason for the transfer of the petitioner and this transfer has been effected simply to wrench vengeance against the officer bearers of the Association. The transfer is a discriminatory one to victimise the trade Union activities of the petitioner. No action can be taken against the petitioner in view of section 37 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 10. From the reply of the Railway, the above contentions have been controverted in the following manner: 11. The contentions raised by the petitioner stands concluded by series of decisions of this Court. This Court has held that seniority of an employee to other divisions is fixed on the basis of the length of service and an employee cannot have any grievance on account of transfer to other division. This court has further held that the transfer from one division to another cannot be challenged on the ground that it would affect their seniority in other division and also affect their future chances of promotion in other division to which they are transferred. There is clear provision of para 311 contained in Indian Railway Establishment Manual which deals with such transfers. Reliance is placed upon the decisions in Civil Writ Petition No. 1023/81 Laxman Singh vs. Union of India (1), Mohammed Latif vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir(2), Mathura Prasad Yadav v. Inspector General Rly. Prosecution(3) and Mohanlal v. State of Rajasthan(4). 12. There is clear provision of para 311 contained in Indian Railway Establishment Manual which deals with such transfers. Reliance is placed upon the decisions in Civil Writ Petition No. 1023/81 Laxman Singh vs. Union of India (1), Mohammed Latif vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir(2), Mathura Prasad Yadav v. Inspector General Rly. Prosecution(3) and Mohanlal v. State of Rajasthan(4). 12. The relevant observations in Laxmansingh vs. Union of India (supra) are as under:— "The second contention urged by Shri Shrama was that seniority of T.T.E. in the Western Railway is maintained on divisional basis and that the transfer of the petitioners from Jaipur Division to other divisions would prejudicially affect their seniority as well as their future chances of promotion and that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed for that reason. In my view the aforesaid contention of shri Sharma cannot be accepted. In the first place there is nothing in the writ petitions to show that as a result of the transfer from Jaipur Division to other divisions the petitioners would be prejudicially affected in the matter of fixation of their seniority so as to affect their future chances of promotions Moreover, seniority of the petitioner on transfer to the other divisions will be fixed on the basis of the length of service and the petitioners cannot make a grievance. It cannot be said that merely because there are separate seniority lists for T.T.E. for each division T.T.E., belonging to one division cannot be transferred to another division." 13. My attention was also drawn to the observations made in Mohammed Latifs case (Supra) which read as under:— "A transfer from one department to another department is not open to challenge on the ground that the said transfer would affect the seniority in the other department and affect his chances of promotion because a mere chance of promotion is not a condition of service and if a person on being transferred goes down a few steps as to loose promotion, it cannot be said that his conditions of service have been so altered to his prejudice." 14. Similarly, in Mathura Prasad Vs. Inspector General Rly. Similarly, in Mathura Prasad Vs. Inspector General Rly. Prosecution (Supra), a division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the transfer from Central Railway to Western Railway, even if it effects the seniority of chances of promotion of the Railway servant, would not invalidate the transfer which is made in the exercise of the power conferred by the Act and the Rules Regulations made there-under. 15. In Mohanlal vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) this Court has rejected a similar contention where a transfer has been made from one Municipal Board to another Municipal Board. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that under the relevant Rules a power has been conferred on the competent authority to transfer a railway servant within the railway as well as from one railway to another railway. The transfer of the petitioners from one division to another division of the Western railway cannot, therefore, be challenged on the ground that it would effect their seniority on the other division and also affect their future chances of promotion in the other division and to which they are transferred. 16. Controverting the second contention, it has been averred that as the petitioner stands transferred to another division he will have his right of promotion on the basis of length of service in the grade and he has got no right to be considered in the division wherefrom he has been transferred, only after the transfer. 17. In reply to the third contention, it was argued that in exactly identical circumstances one Shri R.N. Sharma was transferred from Western Railway to Northern Railway. Shri R.N. Sharma was also an office bearer of the Association and this Court in Civil Writ No. 980/81 R.N. Sharma vs. Union of India and others decided on 31st March, 1982, has held that such a transfer is perfectly valid. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the contention of the petitioner regarding arbitrary action and victimisation, therefore, stands concluded by the aforesaid decision of this Court. 18. So far as the fourth contention of the petitioner is concerned, it has been denied that the transfer has been effected to wrench vengeance against the petitioner for his trade union activities. 18. So far as the fourth contention of the petitioner is concerned, it has been denied that the transfer has been effected to wrench vengeance against the petitioner for his trade union activities. It is open to the petitioner to carry on the trade union activities but he has no right of disrupting the public utility services like that of Railways by boycotting the duty legally imposed upon him. The respondents would be failing in their duty if they do not take remedicai administrative steps to ensure safe and punctual running of the trains. In the garb of the alleged trade union activities, the petitioner has no right to disrupt the essential services. The gravity of situation cannot be minimised by stating that no untoward incident happened due to boycott of the control telephone, certainly petitioner cannot take the credit for this. No action has been taken against the petitioner to attract section 37. 19. I would have dealt with individual grounds raised by the petitioners and decided separately, but in view of the judgment of this Court in Laxman Singh vs. Union of India (supra), it is not necessary to have an exercise of repetition 20. On a careful consideration of the entire matter, I am of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Laxman Singhs case squarely covers the present controversy. 21. Shri G.S. Singhvi, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, confronted with the above settled position of law, so far as this Court is concerned, submitted that the above referred judgments of this Court are under appeal before the Division Bench and a special appeal has been admitted and therefore, these cases should be referred to Division Bench. I am not inclined to accept this prayer of Shri Singhvi. It is obvious that by boycotting the control telephone system of the Railway, these Station Masters risked the life of lacs of travelling public and exposed them to serious hazards of Railway accidents. It is well known that the Railway accidents take toil of several innocent passengers. The petitioners could have resorted to other methods of protest and agitation for pressing their demands. The boycott of control phones of Railway and consequential disruption of essential public utility services threatens the security of lacs of innocent citizens and may have encouraged threatening even the security of the State. 22. The petitioners could have resorted to other methods of protest and agitation for pressing their demands. The boycott of control phones of Railway and consequential disruption of essential public utility services threatens the security of lacs of innocent citizens and may have encouraged threatening even the security of the State. 22. Though, the Railway has not justified the transfers on these grounds and I should not be misunderstood to refect the writ petition or contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners only on the above ground, but this Court can certainly take notice of the admitted conduct which is most derogatory, while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. Even with effective control system of railways the one Railway Ministers tenure witnessed killing of several, if not thousands, in 97 accidents out of which three were announced by him in Parliament on August 17, 1981. What would be the disastrous consequences of boycott of control by controllers, is voice-choking, tragic, pathetic, hari-raising, society rocking, disastrous and dangerous phenomenon to be imagined. 24. It is well established law that the conduct of the petitioner in writ petition is very relevant. The above conduct of the petitioners is an additional reason for disentitling them from remedy under equitable and extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. The result is that these writ petitions therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.