BHAT ( 1 ) PETITIONER seeks the quashing of the Seniority List of Prosecuting Inspectors Grade II (Grade II for short ). Northern Railway as on 1. 10. 1991, and also the quashing of the promotions of respondents 3 to 9 to the post of Grade II with retrospective effect; Petitioner also seeks a direction to give him the seniority above that of respondents 3 to 9, as also to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Prosecuting Inspector Grade I. ( 2 ) FOR the purpose of this writ petition, it is sufficient to note that there are three relevant posts in Railway Protection Force (RPF for short ). The highest of these is the post of Prosecuting Sub Inspector (PSI, for short ). The next higher post is of G-II and the further higher post is of G-I. The essence of the petitioner s case Is that he was appointed directly to the post of G-II, earlier to the actual promotions of respondents 3 to 9 from the post of PSI to G-II and therefore, he is senior to these respondents in the Cadre of G-II. ( 3 ) PETITIONER was selected to the post of G-II on 14. 4. 1986 and therefore, he was given the appointment letter on 1. 9. 1986; there was a training which, the petitioner completed and was appointed on 3. 4. 1987. According to the petitioner, his appointment to the post of G-II, was with effect from 1. 9. 19086 or at any rate (undisputedly), from. 3. 4. 1987. He joined the post on 10. 4. 1987. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 3 to 9 were working as PSIs. They were promoted to the post of G-II on various dates between 20. 5. 1987 to 17. 6. 1991 and therefore, on the face of these dates, petitioner will be senior to these respondents; however, this was Ignored while preparing the seniority list on 1. 10. 1991, wherein he was placed after respondents 3 to 9 in the said seniority list of G-II officials. Petitioner represented against his placement in the seniority list on 4. 11. 1991. He repeated his representation on various dates such as 22. 11. 1991; 23. 1. 1992 and 27. 5. 1992; The respondents I and 2 did not respond. Petitioner was not even told of the reason for placing him below respondents 3 to 9. Petitioner represented against his placement in the seniority list on 4. 11. 1991. He repeated his representation on various dates such as 22. 11. 1991; 23. 1. 1992 and 27. 5. 1992; The respondents I and 2 did not respond. Petitioner was not even told of the reason for placing him below respondents 3 to 9. Hence this writ petition. ( 5 ) PETITIONER has also given the actual dates on which respondents 3 to 9 were promoted, though the said promotions purported to grant the benefit to these respondents retrospectively. The actual dates of the promotion orders are :- Respondent No. 3 20. 5. 1987 4 19. 2. 1988 5 20. 5. 1987 6 20. 5. 1987 7 17. 6. 1991 8 20. 5. 1987 9 13. 5. 1988 According to the petitioner in May, 1991, a vacancy arose in the Cadre of G-I and petitioner made a representation for promotion as G-I, since promotion was entirely based on seniority in the Cadre of G-II. ( 6 ) RESPONDENTS I and 2 in their written statement contended that respondents 3 to 9 were promoted but in consequence of upgradation on restructuring of Group C and D Cadres of RPF/ P. P. S. F. "with effect from 1st April, 1983 in terms of Railway Board s letter No. PC-III/84/- UPC/1 dated 6th February 1984". According to them the promotion on upgradation was effected on the basis of inter se seniority, after examination of records. The fact that the post of Prosecuting Inspector is of higher rank, status and pay than that of PSI, is admitted. Respondents contend that since the promotions of respondents 3 to 9 were by virtue of the upgradation of certain posts in the Cadre of PSI with effect from 1. 4. 1983, petitioner cannot challenge their promotion, especially so, because, petitioner entered the scene only in April 1987, much after the upgradation of the posts. ( 7 ) THE upgradation of the posts referred by the respondents Is as. per the letter dated 6. 2. 1984 (marked Annexures R-l and R-2 to the written statement of respondents 1 and 2 ). 1983, petitioner cannot challenge their promotion, especially so, because, petitioner entered the scene only in April 1987, much after the upgradation of the posts. ( 7 ) THE upgradation of the posts referred by the respondents Is as. per the letter dated 6. 2. 1984 (marked Annexures R-l and R-2 to the written statement of respondents 1 and 2 ). The said letter states that "the Ministry of Railways, after careful consideration of the need for cadre review and restructuring of Group c and d cadres of the Railway Protection Force and the Railway Protection Special Force, have decided that Group c and d posts may be restructured on each railway/battalion of RPSF as per details in the attached Annexures I, II, III and IV. "it further states that the restructuring orders will take effect from 1. 4. 1983. The relevant clause (4) reads: the restructuring orders will take effect from 1. 4. 1983. The eligible staff should be given proforma fixation from 1. 4. 83 but cash payment from 1. 1. 1984. In all cases of upgradation pay will be fixed under 2018-B (FR 22-C) - RII. Wherever the benefit, of promotion to more than one higher grade becomes necessary, the notional benefit of fixation in FR 22-C will be admissible in both the grades in terms of extent orders. "the letter further points out that existing classification of posts as selection or non-selection remains unchanged (Clause 6 ). The desire of the Ministry to restructure RPF/rpsf in terms of this order expeditiously, is pointed out in clause 7. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that upgradation of a post does not result automatically in the promotion of the incumbent of the office to the upgraded post and that retrospective promotion is Impermissible in law. The learned counsel pointed out that promotion to the post of G-II from PSI is not automatic, but Involves consideration of merit, tested by written examination etc. ; therefore. It is not at all possible to give that promotion any retrospectivity. It was also contended that retrospective promotion, cannot affect the seniority earned by the petitioner in the Cadre of G-II. ( 9 ) RESPONDENTS 3,5,6 and 8 were promoted by, an order dated 20. 5. 1987 (Annexure 6 ). ; therefore. It is not at all possible to give that promotion any retrospectivity. It was also contended that retrospective promotion, cannot affect the seniority earned by the petitioner in the Cadre of G-II. ( 9 ) RESPONDENTS 3,5,6 and 8 were promoted by, an order dated 20. 5. 1987 (Annexure 6 ). The order refers to the selection held in March 1987; those respondents had been brought to the panel of G-II on 18. 3. 1987; the order promotes them provisionally as G-II w. e. f. 1. 4. 1983; proforma fixation of pay w. e. f. 1. 4. 1983 were granted in terms of Ministry s letter dated 27. 3. 1984 (may be a letter in terms of Annexure R-1 filed by 1st respondent, though actually this letter of 27. 3. 1984 is not forthcoming ). The 4th respondent was given a similar promotion as per a letter dated February 1988 (Annexure-8) and while giving the promotion the proforma promotion w. e. f. 1. 4. 1983 it refers to a letter of the Railway Board dated 21. 8. 1984. ( 10 ) ON 13. 5. 1988, 9th respondent was similarly promoted as G-II, after he was provisionally brought on the panel of G-II on 10. 5. 1988. The proforma fixation of pay w. e. f. 1. 4. 1983 is stated to be on the basis of Railway Board s letter dated 6. 2. 1984 (Annexure R-1 ). ( 11 ) THE respondents contended that the respondents 3 to 9 had a vested right created by virtue of Annexure R-1 (letter of the Railway Board dated 6. 2. 1984) to be promoted and this right accrued to them far earlier to the appointment; of the petitioner as G-II and that if the respondents were eligible for promotion on upgradatlon of the posts in the cadre of PSI, they had to be given the promotion w. e. f. 1. 4. 1983. ( 12 ) AT one stage, competence of the Railway Board to formulate a policy and enforce it in terms of Annexure R-1 was raised, on the ground that such a policy can be formulated only by the Central Government. Having regard to the fact that Railway Board exercises the powers of the Central Government under the relevant Statutes, I find no force in this contention. Having regard to the fact that Railway Board exercises the powers of the Central Government under the relevant Statutes, I find no force in this contention. This apart, Annexure R-1 clearly states that restructuring referred therein was entirely due to the decision of the Ministry Concerned (a general way of referring to the Government ). ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Annexure R- 1 is not exhaustive, because, restructuring referred therein has to be only in terms of Annexure I, II, III and IV referred in the said document Annexure R-1 and that these annexures are not filed by the 1st respondent. The learned counsel placed before me a copy of Annexure-1 and Annexure R-1 and contended that in Northern Railway only 3 posts of PSIs were upgraded and if so 1st respondent could not have. promoted all the respondents 3 to 9 (seven persons) ( 14 ) I find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The document relied upon and filed by respondents 1 and 2, as Annexure R-1 is not complete. It is an incomplete document. Restructuring to be done under Annexure R-1 was to be only as per details in the attached Annexures I to IV to Annexure R-1. ( 15 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 owe a duty to assist this Court by placing full and proper material to arrive at a correct decision. When a serious question is raised and prima facie, a case is made out by the petitioner, burden shifts on to the respondent to defeat the petitioner s case. ( 16 ) HERE is a case, where, admittedly petitioner was appointed on 10. 4. 1987 as G-II (if not on 1. 9. 1986) on the said date, as a fact. responds to 9 were in a lower cadre. If so,. it is for the respondents 1 and 2 to show, as to how, respondents 3 to 9 could become seniors to the petitioner, by promoting them retrospectively. ( 17 ) GIVING retrospective promotion is an exception to the normal rule of promoting a person. Giving retrospectivlty enables "back door entry" to a Cadre, to the detriment of the earlier entrant to the Cadre. ( 18 ) UPGRADATION of a post automatically, does not result in promoting the incumbent of the office. ( 17 ) GIVING retrospective promotion is an exception to the normal rule of promoting a person. Giving retrospectivlty enables "back door entry" to a Cadre, to the detriment of the earlier entrant to the Cadre. ( 18 ) UPGRADATION of a post automatically, does not result in promoting the incumbent of the office. If a particular number of posts in a Cadre are upgraded, and the promotion to a upgraded post is to be on the basis of selection, it is impossible to hold that all those who are in the seniority range falling within the number of upgraded posts in the lower cadre would get automatic promotion. ( 19 ) PETITIONER had been working as G-II atleast since 10. 4. 1987, on which date respondents 3 to 9 were not promoted de facto as G-II. ( 20 ) THIS apart, there is nothing to indicate that atleast respondents 4 to 9 had an experience of 5 years as PSIs as on 1. 4. 1983, to gain eligibility for consideration for promotion to the post of G-II. At the most respondents 3 to 9 had a right to be considered for promotion to the post of G-II, at the time, petitioner was appointed as G-II; they had no accrued right, to the said post on the said date; therefore, it cannot be said that by virtue of the Ministry s decision read with the Railway Board s letter dated 6. 2. 1984 (Annexure R-1), right to the said post had" vested in those respondents already, before the appointment of the petitioner. Respondents have failed to establish that promotions of all the respondents 3 to 9 as G-II were in terms of Ministry s letter dated 6. 2. 1984 (Annexure R-1 ). It is not shown that sufficient number of posts in the cadre of PSI were upgraded to enable their promotions; there is no material to justify that all of them had eligibility for promotion as on 1. 4. 1983. In the circumstances, granting of seniority to these respondents - 3 to 9 above that of the petitioner, will be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 21 ) IT is unnecessary to upset the promotions of respondents 3 to 9. Interest of petitioner will be safeguarded by granting him the seniority above these respondents in the cadre of G-II. ( 21 ) IT is unnecessary to upset the promotions of respondents 3 to 9. Interest of petitioner will be safeguarded by granting him the seniority above these respondents in the cadre of G-II. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to grant the petitioner, his due place of seniority above respondents 3 to 9 in the seniority list of Prosecuting Inspectors G-II. ( 22 ) WHEN petitioner is found to be senior to respondents 3 to 9, it follows that he is entitled to be promoted as G-I, by virtue of his seniority, as there has been no dispute that promotion to the post of G- 1 from G-II is based entirely on seniority. ( 23 ) IN the result, I allow this writ petition, and make the following order: - (I) Petitioner is declared to be senior to respondents 3 to 9 in the Cadre of Prosecuting Inspectors G-II and respondents 1 and 2 shall accord him the appropriate place in the relevant seniority list. (II) Petitioner s case for promotion to the post of Prosecuting Inspector G-I shall be considered with reference to the aforesaid seniority and all consequential benefits shall be granted to him, as a consequence of the said promotion (including the benefit of the date from which he should have been promoted as such ). (Ill) Respondents 1 and 2 shall comply with the terms of this order within 8 weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Parties shall bear their respective costs.