JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The petitioner an U. D. Clerk under the Orissa State Electricity Board has come before this Court seeking the reliefs of maintaing his senbrity in acordance with his date of appointment as. L. D Clerk on 3-7 1971 and quashing of the promotion of opp. party 4 alleged to have been made on the basis of wrong determination of seniority. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on 3-3-1971 as L.D. Clerk in the office of the Superintending, Engineer, Berhampur, but wss transferred to the Cuttack Electrical Circle on 29-12-1973. A gradition list was published in 1978 (Annoxure-3) wherein the petitioner was shown at Serial 67 with his date of appointment as 3-7-1971 and also showing the very same date from which his seniority was counted. Subsequently, though the O. P. 4 was junior to him having been appointed on 23-10-1971 yet he was promoted on 16-3-1982 as U D. Clerk superseding him. Being aggrieved by such supersession the petitioner filed the present petition. During pendency of the petition in this Court, the seniority list was modified on 30th October, 1985 in Annexure-12 showing the petitioner's seniority in the cadre as having been computed from' 12-1-1974 i'e., the date on which he Joined the Cuttack Electrical Circle. In the list a remark was made as against his name that he had joined the Cuttack Electrical Circle after having been brought over on transfer from the Electrical Circle, Berhampur and that his seniority is disputed as pending in this Court in the case. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opp. parties contending that the transfer of the petitioner was on mutual basis on his own application and that due to such reason his seniority has been placed below all the incumbents in the cadre on the date of the transfer, and as regards the promotion of O. P. 4, it is contended that it was made against reserve quota to which the petitioner could not have any claim. 3. Annexure-2, the order of transfer of . the petitioner, shows it to have been made in the place of one S. K. Mohapatra who was transferred from Cuttack Circle to the Berhampur Circle. 3. Annexure-2, the order of transfer of . the petitioner, shows it to have been made in the place of one S. K. Mohapatra who was transferred from Cuttack Circle to the Berhampur Circle. In view of the statement made in the counter-affidavit that the transfers between S. K. Mohapatra and the petitioner were made on mutual basis and there being nothing to the contrary on the record, the fact is to be accepied as such. Besides, there is also no denying of the fact, which has also been noticed in several decisions of this Court, that different circles headed by the Superintending Engineers, constitute different cadres for the ministerial officers and that transfer between the Circles constitute cadre transfers. 4. Mr. B. K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the O. P. 4 has, fin support of the new seniority assigned to the petitioner, placed reliance upon a decision of the O. S. E. B. purported to have been conveyed in a Setter of 26th May, "1976 to the Superintending Engineer, Cuttack Circle that in case of cadre transfers the transferee will get the seniority from the date of his joining in the Division and/or the Circle if the transfer is made at his own request. Such submission of Mr. Nayak does not appear to have any substance. The clarification issued in the letter relied upon ex faoie, on its own terms, relates to only transfers made at one's requests. A; is well known, cadre transfer in any service may be made in three different ways. Firstly, an employee may be transferred by the employer at his discretion in exigencies of the service; secondly, the transfer may be made at the employee's own request which is usually known as taking a voluntary transfer; and thirdly, two employees belonging to two different cadies offices may agree for a mutual transfer as between them. The rule of seniority commonly accepted so far as the three types of transfers are concerned, are different from each other, but all such rules are only based upon the principles of fairplay and equity. So far as transfer by the employer at his own instance for exigencies of service is concerned, an employee transferred to a different cadre is not to be adversely affected with regard to his seniority on the basis of his appointment/promotion and. is ordinarily to retain the same in the new cadre. So far as transfer by the employer at his own instance for exigencies of service is concerned, an employee transferred to a different cadre is not to be adversely affected with regard to his seniority on the basis of his appointment/promotion and. is ordinarily to retain the same in the new cadre. Where the employee himself seeks a transfer for some reason of his own, he cannot be permitted to take his own seniority to the. new cadre to the detriment of others already in the cadre and hence must find his seniority below everybody also in the cadre on the date of the transfer. So far as mutual, transfer is concerred,it is the common practice that the the transferees exchange their positions in seniority subject to the condition that a transferee by such process does not march ever the existing incumbents who are otherwise his seniors and in such case the transferee takes the seniority on the basis of his date of recruitment/promotion. This is the distinction between the fixations of seniority between the three types of transfers and in the absence of any rule to the contrary, is to be the basis for determination of seniority. 5. The rde regarding seniority in the case of mutual tansfers, as has been enunciated above, have also been statutorily recognised in different service rules, P. &. T Manual VoI-IV, Rule 38 is as follows : "Transfers of officials when des'red for their own ronvenience should not be discouraged if they can be made without injury to the rights of others. However, as a general rule, an official should not be transferred from one unit to another, either within the same Circle, or to another Circle unless he is permanent. As it is not possible to accommodate an official borne on one gradation list into another gradation list without injury on the other members in that gradation list such transfers should not ordinarily be allowed except by way of mutual exchange. As it is not possible to accommodate an official borne on one gradation list into another gradation list without injury on the other members in that gradation list such transfers should not ordinarily be allowed except by way of mutual exchange. Transfers by way of mutual exchange, if in themselves inherently unobjectionable, should be allowed, but in order to safeguard the rights of men borne in the gradation lists of both the offices, the official brought in should take the place, in the new gradation list; that would have been assigned to him had he been originally recruited in that unit or the place vacated by the official with whom he exchanges appointment, whichever is the lower." In the Railway Establishment Manual, Rules 310 to 312 relates to mutual exchanges and is to the following effect : "310. Railway servants transferred on mutual exchange from one cadre of a division, office or railway to the corresponding cadre in another division, office or railway shall retain their seniority on the basis of the date of promotion, to the grade, or take the seniority of the railway servants with whom they have exchanged, whichever of the two may be lower." "311. Seniority of railway servants on transfer from one cadre to another in the interest of the administration is regulated by the date of promotion/date of appointment to the grade as the case may be." "312. The seniority of railway servants transferred at their own request from one railway to another should be allotted below that of the existing and officiating railway servant in the relevant grade in the promotion ground in the new establishment irrespective of the state of confirmation or length of officiating service of the transferred railway servants." 6. Though such rule applies to different establishments and have no application as such to the establishment of the O. S. E. B., yet the principles .thereof being grounded on principles of natural justice and equity are to be followed and adopted in determination of seniority of persons like the petitioner, particularly in the absence of any regulations formed by the O. S. E. B covering the field. To our specific query on the question, Mr. Nayak has also not been able to point any other rule of seniority except the Setter of 26th May, 1976. 7. To our specific query on the question, Mr. Nayak has also not been able to point any other rule of seniority except the Setter of 26th May, 1976. 7. Admittedly, the determination of seniority in respect of the petitioner has proceeded on the footing of he being treated as an entrant to the cadre on 12-1-1974 only. His seniority has not been determined on the basis of the principles as explained above. It was necessary for the O, S E H. to have found out what was the place of seniority left vacant by B. K Mohaptra and what would have been the seniority of the petitioner on his being treated as an entrant to the cadre on 3-7-1971. The petitioner was entitled to the lower of the two positions as his place in seniority. 8. In that view of the matter, since the seniority of the petitioner has not been determined on the correct principles, the O. 5. E. B. must be called upon to redetermine the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis othf- incumbents in the cadre. - 9. However, so far as the promotion of O. P. 4 is concerned, since his promotion was against a reserve quota. It is not available to be assailed by the petitioner and such relief must be negatived. 10. in the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned gradation list in Annexure-12 is quashed and the opp. parties 1 to 3 are directed to redetermine the seniority of the petitioner on the principles explained above after affording opportunity to all concerned to file their objections. The gradation list be prepared within a period of three months from the receipt of the writ from this Court. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 300/- V. Gopalaswamy, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed