JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this Petitioner Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner serving as a Meter Reader under opposite parties 1 and 2, has prayed for quashing Annexure 8 and for declaration that he is senior in service to opposite parties 3 to 8 and 10 to 12. 2. The Petitioner, a matriculate, was appointed as a Meter Reader at Rourkela on 26.5.1973. He made a representation for his transfer to the coastal region. The representation was allowed, subject to the condition that his seniority in the cadre of Meter Readers in the circle cadre on transfer will be fixed from the date of his joining at the new station. The Petitioner gave an undertaking to abide by the condition and on the transfer being effected he joined at Balasore as a Meter Reader on 5.5.1976. Under opposite party No. 1 there are posts of Clerks-B who are treated as skilled-B employees. The eligibility for appointment to such posts is matriculation. Though the Meter Readers were originally semi-skilled-A employees, subsequently opposite party No. 1 treated them as skilled-B employees with matriculation as qualification for first entry into service. Opposite party No. 1 also decided that non-matriculate Meter Readers with three years' completed service in the semi-skilled-A category shall be regarded as skilled-B employees. Thus the cadres of Clerk-B and Meter Readers-B were equalised as skilled-B employees with equivalent scale of pay existing at present at Rs. 290-510/-. It is submitted that opposite parties 3 to 8 and 10 to 12 entered into service as Lower Division Clerks after the Petitioner. On account of integration of the cadres as referred to above, Clerks-B and Meter Readers-B are treated as skilled-B employees, for which reason, the Petitioner is senior in service to them. But in Annexure-8 dated 16.11.1979 opposite party No. 1 decided that Clerks-B shall en bloc rank above Meter Readers-B. This Annexure 8 created discrimination between equivalent cadres of skilled-B category of employees violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed and the Petitioner certified to be declared as senior in service to opposite parties 3 to 8 and 10 to 12 (name of opposite party No. 9 was expunged). 3. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed and the Petitioner certified to be declared as senior in service to opposite parties 3 to 8 and 10 to 12 (name of opposite party No. 9 was expunged). 3. The short defence raised in the counter affidavit of opposite party No. 1, the Orissa State Electricity Board, is that prior to merger of Clerks-B and Meter Readers by virtue of Annexure-8, those employees were not of equal category. While the Petitioner was appointed as a Meter Reader, opposite parties 3 to 12 were appointed as Lower Division Clerks. So, there could be no question of determination of inter se seniority of Meter Readers and Lower Division Clerks. By Annexure-8, opposite party No. 1 took a policy decision to equalise the cadre of Meter Readers with Clerk-B and decided that while maintaining the inter se seniority of the Meter Readers, they shall De placed enbloc below the existing Clerks-B. Opposite party No. 1 being the employer bad the right to take such a decision in consideration of the service conditions of both the cadres. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot legally challenge the validity of Annexure-8 on the ground of discrimination and so it cannot be quashed. 4. There is an under current of submission in the petition taking the form of a subdued grievance to the effect that the Petitioner was pressurised to forego his original seniority from the date of first entry into service i.e. 26-5-1973 and accept the new date of joining at Balasore with effect from 5-5-1976 for reckoning seniority, whereby, he lost three years' of service. Such a grievance, in our opinion, is not entertainable for the simple reason that the Petitioner was a consenting party thereto on account of his own convenience for seeking a transfer to the coastal region. We, therefore, do not take notice of it. 5. The main grievance of the Petitioner is the policy decision of opposite party No. 1 contained in Annexure-8 the relevant portion of which is extracted below: xxxxx The question of equalisation of cadre of Meter Readers with Clerk-B was under consider-action of the Board for some time past. After careful consideration it has been decided to merge the:Meter Readers working in each circle/Division in the Clerk 'B' cadre of the circle under skilled 'B' category. 2. After careful consideration it has been decided to merge the:Meter Readers working in each circle/Division in the Clerk 'B' cadre of the circle under skilled 'B' category. 2. The inter se seniority of the Meter Readers so merged in the Clerk- 'B' cadre shall be counted from the date of issue of this order and they shall for the purpose of seniority, be placed below the existing Clerk 'B' already encadred in the respective circle cadre. The seniority of the Meter Readers in each Circle existing prior to their merger in the Clerk- 'B' cadre shall, however, remain in tact and they shall be merged in the Clerk 'B' cadre, in order of their seniority as Meter Reader. Opposite party No. 1 being the employer was competent to take a policy decision to formulate principles for determination of seniority of its employees. Its power to do so is unchallengeable, unless they work out discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In other words, opposite party No. 1 being the employer, while taking a policy decision with regard to seniority must treat its employees with equal measure with due regard to their respective cadres. So long opposite party No. 1 operates within this circumscribed limit, its action cannot be called in question by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By taking a policy decision in Annexure-8 opposite party No. 1 had to deal with two separate cadres, namely, Clerks-B and Meter Readers. Prior to Annexure-8, these two categories of employees were separate from each other, but Annexure-8 brought a merger and both the cadres were treated as skilled-B. Prior to the merger Clerks-B were in all respects superior to the - Meter Readers. After the merger, although both the categories were treated as equals, yet the superior category of Clerks-B were given enbloc seniority over the Meter Readers. We do not consider that by taking this policy decision regarding fixation of inter se seniority of these two groups of employees, a discrimination was perpetrated or the two groups of employees were treated with inequality. An almost identical question came up for consideration in Niranjan Padhiary v. The Orissa State Electricity Board and Ors. O.J.C. No. 1429 of 1980 - D/12-2-1985, to which one of us was a party. An almost identical question came up for consideration in Niranjan Padhiary v. The Orissa State Electricity Board and Ors. O.J.C. No. 1429 of 1980 - D/12-2-1985, to which one of us was a party. In the said case the legality of Annexure-8 with regard to fixation of seniority of Lower Division Clerks of different categories was also called in question. It was held: ...Their inter se seniority could not have been determined when they belonged to separate and different cadres. Office orders as per Annexures-8 and 9 making the L.D. Clerks (Clerk 'B') as were existing before 21.1.1973 under a separate cadre senior to those who entered the cadre on 21.1.1973, are purely matters of policy. The Board's decision in this regard cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to hold that Annexure-8 was illegal, arbitrary and created discrimination between two categories of employees merged into one cadre with effect from 16.11.1979. The Petitioner accordingly cannot rank senior to opposite parties 3 to 12 even though he might have entered into service as a Meter Reader earlier to the latter. 6. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed, but without costs. J.K. Mohanty, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed