ORDER 1. The problem posed and the point raised in these appeals covered against the appellants by a decision of this Court rendered in Rama Kant Chaturvedi v. Divisional Supdt., N. Rly.l In Rama Kant question of seniority had arisen in the context of the employees working as engine drivers on the steam side who were posted on the dies Diesel Engine Drivers after completing the requisite training and at the requisite test. The problem arose on account of diesel" switching over from steam engines to diesel engines. Consequently the engine drivers on the steam side were rendered surplus. The Railway administration instead of retrenching them gave them the option to training and to qualify themselves, for being posted on the diesel operation was loosely referred to as "transfer" to the diesel side reality it was an operation for "absorbing" the steam side drive diesel side upon their being qualified in this behalf after undergoing This Court has taken the view that those who were appointed or earlier in point of time on the diesel side would be senior to those appointed or absorbed on the diesel side at a later date; notwithstanding fact that the latter were senior in the parent cadre on the steam side. This Court has formed the opinion that once they ceased to belong to th cadre on the steam side the seniority in the said cadre becomes And that seniority on the diesel side must depend on the length of se the diesel side. It appears that one of the qualifications which was initially Prescribed was that only those candidates who were matriculates would be posted on the diesel side. Subsequently, due to exigencies of administration qualification was relaxed or dispensed with. It was argued before this . Rama Kant casel that inasmuch as the matriculation qualification was relaxed subsequently, their seniority in the parent cadre on the steam side should prevai1. This contention was unhesitatingly negatived by this Court.The view taken is that the subsequent relaxation of the rule cannot enable them to take "leap-frog" over the head of those who were on the ide and that seniority on the steam side is of no relevance in determining the seniority on the diesel side. This contention was unhesitatingly negatived by this Court.The view taken is that the subsequent relaxation of the rule cannot enable them to take "leap-frog" over the head of those who were on the ide and that seniority on the steam side is of no relevance in determining the seniority on the diesel side. In the present appeals the problem arises in the context of the employees who originally belonged to the “diesel side” but were subsequently absorbed and posted on the “electric side in view of the electrifications of the tracks. Under the circumstances the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which is in conformity with the view taken by this Court in Rama Kant casel cannot be faulted. It may also be mentioned that arranging seniority on the basis by the appel1ants will result in anomalous and unjust consequences.An illustration w1l1 be useful for proper comprehension of the point.Visualize the case of an employee of D cadre being appointed in the after training. He is assigned seniority, say, at Sl. No. 150. In case employees from the E cadre itself are promoted later on, they will cd seniority at Sl. Nos. 151 and 152. If another employee from D cadre subsaquently appointed in E cadre is required to be accorded above S1 No. 150 because the new appointee was senior vis-a-vis him in the parent cadre (Cadre V) can the senionty of those who are 81. Nos. 151 and 152 be disturbed? If the new appointee who are Sl. No. 153 is given seniority above Sl. No. 150, those from D cadre who are assigned seniority at Sl. Nos. 151 and 152 will become juniors to the new appointee absorbed much later. It is thus evident that everythmg .in utter chaos. Such a system is thus entirely unworkable apart from being unjust. The order under appeal cannot therefore be successfully Reliance was, however, placed on a decision of the Calcutta High in Divisional Personnel Officer; South Eastern Rly. v. M.P. Ranga . The Calcutta High Court has taken the view that the appointment on the diesel side of those who originally belonged to the steam side would fall Rule 311 of the Railway Establishment Manual Rules, and that under the circumstances, the seniority in the parent cadre on the steam side would prevail irrespective of the date of posting on the diesel cadre. We are unable . We are unable . cur with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. Rules 310, 311 and 312 which were taken into account by the High Court do not apply to a on like the present where on account of the modernisation switch over steam side to diesel side and subsequently from the diesel side to the electric side was necessitated. The Rules which have been relied upon by the Court do not contemplate a situation arising in the context of such a switch over. The Rules only contemplate ordinary transfers situations arising from absorption of personnel from other ca compassionate grounds. So also the High Court was not right in taking view that it was a "transfer" in the interest of the administration. In was not a "transfer" in the real sense at all. It was absorption employees on the diesel side or the electric side upon their acquiring qualification requisite for being absorbed. So also it was m compassionate grounds and not in the interest of the administration point is squarely covered against the appellants by the decision in Kant easel. The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed. Interim will stand vacated. There will be no order as to costs.