JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated the 23rd March, 1979 of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. By a circular dated the 16th November, 1967 the Works Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur, invited applications from skilled carpenters who were interested in the fitting work of skilled fitters and were desirous to have their designations changed from skilled carpenters to that of skilled fitters. In the circular, it was mentioned that the applicants will be trade tested for skilled fitter (carriage and wagon trade) before their changes were effected. It was further stipulated that the request once exercised and accepted by the administration was to be final and that they would have their avenue of promotion in Fitters (C&W) Trade. In response to this, the petitioner who was a skilled carpenter and was working in the carpenter shop submitted his application, passed the required trade test and was designated as skilled fitter (C&W) by the order dated the 7th February, 1968. By a subsequent order dated October 28, 1972 the petitioner was provisionally confirmed in the trade of Fitter (C and W) with effect from October 1, 1972. On representations made by the staff of carriage and wagon fitter trade through the union, however, the petitioner and 14 others, who were designated as fitters (C and W) were re-designated as carpenters by the order dated July 10, 1973, and were reassigned their original seniority in the carpenters trade from the date of their entry in the skilled grade. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Court for quashing the order dated July 10, 1973 and for a direction that he be promoted to the post of H.S. Gr. II in the carpenters grade. The petitioner also sought a relief for quashing the promotions given to respondents No. 3 to 11. 3. In the reply to the writ petition, the respondents submitted that the transfer of the petitioner from carpenter trade to fitter (C&W) trade was on a provisional basis and that after the petitioner and other skilled carpenters were designated as fitters the employees of the fitter trade represented through the unions that on account of the transfer of the carpenters as fitters (C and W) their future advancement was blocked. Taking into consideration the demand of the unions, it was, therefore, decided that the carpenters, designated as fitters should again be re-designated as carpenters in their original trade. The order dated July 10, 1973 was passed to give effect to this decision. 4. The writ petition was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court, who, by the order dated March 22, 1979 dismissed the writ petition holding, inter-alia, that the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (W) who passed the order dated July 10, 1973 was competent. The learned single Judge further held that the petitioner's appointment as a fitter (C&W was of a provisional nature only and that he had not been permanently absorbed in the cadre of fitter (C and W). It was also held that the re-designation of the petitioner as skilled carpenter did not adversely affect his seniority or chances of promotion to the cadre of carpenters and, therefore, the order dated July 10, 1973 did not pre-judicially affect the rights of the petitioner. The learned single Judge further held that the petitioner could not be said to be aggrieved by the promotion of the respondents. As a result, the learned single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present special appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri M.C. Bhoot, counsel for the appellant, has urged that the offer for change of trade was made by the railway administration and in pursuance thereof the petitioner applied, passed the test and was designated as a skilled fitter and it was, therefore, not open to the Railway Administration to re-transfer the petitioner to his original trade, thereby affecting his rights pre-judicially. It was further urged that the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (W) Northern Railway who passed the order dated July 10, 1973 was not competent to re-transfer the petitioner. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel, we do not agree with his contention that the Dy. CME (W) was not competent to affect the transfer. The learned Single Judge has held that the transfer of the appellant from the carriage and wagon shop to the carpenter shop did not involve a change of category and, therefore, a senior scale officer was competent to order a transfer under Rule 2011. CME (W) was not competent to affect the transfer. The learned Single Judge has held that the transfer of the appellant from the carriage and wagon shop to the carpenter shop did not involve a change of category and, therefore, a senior scale officer was competent to order a transfer under Rule 2011. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the transfer of the petitioner from fitter (C&W) to the original trade as carpenter does not involve a change of category. A perusal of the office order dated the 7th February, 1968 itself show that it merely changed the designation of the appellant from carpenter to fitter (C&W) and he was allowed to continue to work in the same shop. Obviously, therefore, the order of re-transfer did not have the effect of change in category. As per rule 2011, a senior scale officer was competent to pass the order of transfer. The Dy. CME was higher in rank to the Senior Scale Officer and was, therefore, fully competent to pass the order dated the 10th July, 1973. There is thus no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order dated July 10, 1973 was unauthorised. 6. We are also not inclined to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Administration was estopped from re-transferring the appellant as carpenter, as the circular issued on November, 16, 1967 stipulated that the change of designation shall be final. It may in this connection be pointed out that the re-transfers to the carpenter trade were effected on the representations made by the Union themselves.The minutes of the meeting held on May 19, 1973, with the representatives of NRMU/URMU workshop Branch with A.P.O. (W) show that it were the Unions who represented that the change of trade from carpenter to fitter (C&W) had adversely affected the chances of promotion to the C&W staff and it were the representatives of the Unions who demanded that the Carpenters should be re-transferred to their original trade with all benefits of seniority and may be allowed to seek promotion in their parent trade only. It was on the basis of the demand made by the Unions that the order of re-transfer was made by the Railway Administration. It was on the basis of the demand made by the Unions that the order of re-transfer was made by the Railway Administration. It was not, therefore, open to the appellant to make a grievance against the re-transfer when the Unions themselves made the demand which was accepted by the Railway Administration. It may also be pointed out that the transfer of the appellant as fitter (C&W) was provisional, as is evident from the order dated October 28, 1972 and we find no legal infirmity in the order passed on July 10, 1973. There is no substance in the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Administration is estopped from re-transferring the appellant from the post of fitter (C&W) to that of the carpenter. 7. It was then contended that while the appellant was working as fitter (C&W), employee who were junior to him in the carpenter shop got promotions to higher posts. He was away from the carpenter shop and was, therefore, deprived of the said chance of promotion. There is no substance in this contention as well. The respondents have 'denied that any one junior to him was promoted to the post in the carpenter section by ignoring the chances of the appellant. Explaining the promotion of respondents No. 9 to 11, it was stated that they had been promoted on Ex-cadre posts. The appellant was entitled to apply for these posts but he did not do so. The promotion of the respondents on these ex-cadre posts does not in any way affect the inter-se seniority of the appellant and the said respondents when it was open to the appellant also to have applied for promotion to those ex-cadre posts which he did not do so, the appellant cannot be allowed to make any grievance against the promotion of respondents No. 9 to 1 1 on the ex-cadre posts. 8. No other point was urged.The result is that there is not merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******