V.K. Khanna, C.J. — This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.9.93, given in Civil Rule No.453 of 1989. 2. We have heard Mr. BK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, assisted by Mr. D. Mazumdar, and Mr. GK Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.5 Sri Ghanakanta Das. 3. The brief facts for the purpose of adjudicating the controversy raised in the present appeal are that the petitioner/appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) on 28.6.66 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Manas Valley Investigation Division, Barpeta Road, in the P WFC (I) Department, Government of Assm. According to the petitioner himself, in the year 1970, this Division was amalgamated with the Nalbari (E&D) Division under the Flood Control Department, Government of Assam, and the petitioner along with the other staff members of the Manas Valley Investigation Division were absorbed in the aforesaid Nalbari (E&D) Division. It is thus clear that in the year 1970, the petitioner was holding the post of LDA in Nalbari (E&D) Division. According to the admitted facts, on 17.11.71, the petitioner was transferred on his won request to another Division as LDA, i.e. in Barpeta (E&D) Division. The transfer order has been annexed as Annexure I to the Civil Rule and the opening part of the transfer order clearly states : "The following Lower Division Assistants are transferred, at their own request, and posted to the office mentioned against each of them, with immediate effect." 4. The sole question which has arisen for determination in this appeal is as to whether the petitioner/appellant's continuous length of service in his earlier Division, i.e. Nalbari (E&D) Division when he has been transferred to another Division, i.e. Barpeta (E&D) Division will be taken into account for the purposes of determining his seniority. The legal position has been admitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that in case it is held that the petitioner's continuous service from the date of his appointment in the Nalbari (E&D) Division is taken into account, he would rank senior to respondent No.5. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the petitioner, as stated above, till the year 1970 was in Nalbari (E&D) Division and it was only from 17.11.71 that he come to Barpeta (E&D) Division on his own request. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the petitioner, as stated above, till the year 1970 was in Nalbari (E&D) Division and it was only from 17.11.71 that he come to Barpeta (E&D) Division on his own request. As far as respondent No.5 is concerned, he has been in Barpeta (E&D) Division since 1.9.66. 5. As far as the rules regarding seniority of the Ministerial Establishment at the District or Divisional level is concerned, the only light which is thrown is from the Assam Ministerial (District Establishment) Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1967). From the scheme which has been laid down in the aforesaid Rules of 1967, it is clear that the Seniority List as far as the Assam Ministerial (District Establishment) Service is concerned, it has to be maintained at the district level. It has not been disputed before us that as far as the service to which the petitioner and the respondent No.5 belonged, they have been divided in various Divisions and, admittedly, Barpeta (E&D) Division f is a district Division than the Nalbari (E&D) Division. 6. On the aforesaid question of determination of seniority, a circular issued by the Government on 26.12.67, which is contained in Annexure VIII to the Civil Rule, will have an important bearing, which runs as follows : "When transfer is made from one office to another in the public interest the length of continuous service will be normally considered in determining inter se seniority. If transfer is done otherwise it is the date of joining the new office that will normally be taken into account in determining inter se seniority." (emphasis provided) Mr. BK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has vehemently urged before us that the aforesaid Government circular cannot take away the seniority of the petitioner as, admittedly, he came in service earlier than respondent No.5 and thus even though he has been transferred from Nalbari Division to Barpeta Division, his continuous service in Nalbari Division will be taken into account for determining his seniority. 7. The crucial question which arises for determination is, therefore, as to whether the Government circular dated 26.12.67 can be said to be either arbitrary or not according to the provisions of any statutory rules so that it may not have effect in the case before us. 7. The crucial question which arises for determination is, therefore, as to whether the Government circular dated 26.12.67 can be said to be either arbitrary or not according to the provisions of any statutory rules so that it may not have effect in the case before us. As far as the Rules of 1967 are concerned, it is clear that they are silent on the question as to when a person seeks transfer on his own volition from one district to another and whether in such an eventuality for determining the seniority his continuous service rendered in the district from which he has been transferred will be taken into account. 8. If one closely looks to the purpose for which the Government circular dated 26.12.67 has been issued, it would become clear as to why the Government did not give the benefit of seniority to a person who was seeking transfer on his own volition and the transfer was not being made in the public interest. In case an officer belonging to the ministerial establishment is transferred on account of public interest from one district to another, the act of transfer by the competent authority is for subserving the public interest and the aforesaid act should not affect the right of the transferred employee and he should not lose the seniority from the date of his appointment. However, in a case in which a person seeks transfer on his own volition, it cannot be said that his case falls in the same category when the transfer has been made in the public interest. When seniority is being maintained in so far as the ministerial establishment is concerned districtwise or divisionwise, the employees serving in those district/divisions will have expectations of going to higher posts on the basis of their seniority. In case a person comes to that establishment because of the public interest, the employees who are in the district establishment cannot complain of the act that the person who may have joined the district/division establishment later on gets seniority over them because of his service which may have been rendered in the district/division in which he had earlier served. In case a person comes to that establishment because of the public interest, the employees who are in the district establishment cannot complain of the act that the person who may have joined the district/division establishment later on gets seniority over them because of his service which may have been rendered in the district/division in which he had earlier served. However, in case where the employee himself opts for the transfer knowing fully well about the circular which had been issued by the Government on 26.12.67, the ministerial officer who had sought his transfer on his own volition cannot claim seniority over others and the period of his service which he had rendered in the other district/division has been rightly excluded under the circular inasmuch as in such an eventuality, he would be seriously affecting the chances of promotion of those ministerial officers who are already in the ministerial establishment of the district/ division. The classification which has been made in the Government circular dated 26.12.67, in our opinion, is a reasonable classification and cannot be said to be an arbitrary classification depriving a person of the seniority by not counting the period of service which he had rendered in any other district/division. 9. If that be so, we are the opinion that the seniority of the petitioner in Barpeta (E&D) Division can only be counted from the date of his joining in pursuance of his transfer order dated 17.11.71 which was made on his request. Admittedly, respondent No.5 Sri Ghanakanta Das, has been appointed in the year 1966. He has, therefore, been rightly held to be senior to the petitioner/ appellant. 10. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the decision taken by the learned Single Judge and the other competent authorities on his question cannot be said to be suffering from any error of law on the face of the record requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. In the result, the present appeal is rejected. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.