This application has been filed with a prayer to restore the seniority of the petitioner in the service along with his alleged continuity and with a further prayer for direction that he be promoted with immediate effects to Grade III to which he is entitled as per Oil Executives Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1990. The further prayers are : (ii)To pay to the petitioner all the arrears with effect from 2.7.83 till 7.12.90 with interest. (iii) That the petitioner be not harassed in anyway or by way of transfer from present place of posting to any other place. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 3. The petitioner passed his BE Examination from Assam Engineering College, Gauhati in the year 1981. The petitioner joined Oil India Limited, Duliajan (hereinafter referred to Oil) as Executive Trainee on 8.11.82 after having been selected through written test and viva as per rules and practice of Oil. The petitioner was to undergo one year training as per his letter of appointment. After completion of 8 (eight) months of training it was terminated with effect from July 2nd, 1983 vide Annexure 2 to the writ application. That is quoted below : "This is to inform you that your training in the company is hereby terminated with effect from July 02, 1983 forenoon, in accordance with paragraph 15 of the letter cited above. 2. A cheque for Rs. 1,671.16 being the amount of security money lying in your personal account in terms of paragraph 6 of the letter under reference and stipend for two days of July, 1983 i.e. upto July 02, 1983 (inclusive) enclosed, in full and final settlement of your account with the company. 3. As for your provident fund settlement, you may contract our Trustees. Oil India Employees Provident Fund. Duliajan. after two months for your settlement of provident fund dues as per the rules of the fund." 4. Clause 15 referred to in that letter is available in the letter of appointment i.e. Annexure 1 to the writ application. That is quoted below : "Company reserves the right to terminate your training at any time without •any notice or compensation therefore based on your performance or on disciplinary grounds as applicable to the employees of the Company." 5. It is submitted that this termination was vindictive in nature because of the petitioner's involvement in Assam Accord. That is quoted below : "Company reserves the right to terminate your training at any time without •any notice or compensation therefore based on your performance or on disciplinary grounds as applicable to the employees of the Company." 5. It is submitted that this termination was vindictive in nature because of the petitioner's involvement in Assam Accord. After being terminated the petitioner worked in other places as described in paragraph 8 of the writ application. The Assam Accord came into existence on 15th August, 1985 and in terms of it, Oil issued a letter which is Annexure 3 to the writ application. That is quoted below : "We draw your attention to the recent notification in the press issued by Oil India Limited inviting applications from affected ex-Oil employees for review of their cases, if they so desire, in the context of the Assam Accord. 2.0 In accordance with the above you are hereby advised to send your case for review to reach us not later that 31st January, 1988. 3.0 Please acknowledge." 6. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for reinstatement with effect from 2nd of July, 1983 with all benefits etc. Vide Annexure 4, the petitioner was reinstated on the following terms and conditions, the relevant portions of Annexure 4 are quoted below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 7. The petitioner raised his objection to this letter and submitted that this was against the spirit of the Assam Accord and is violative of clause 14 (a) of the said Accord. That is quoted below : "14. The Central and the State Government have agreed to : (a) review with sympathy and withdraw cases of disciplinary action taken , against employees in the context of the agitation and to ensure that there is n6 victimization." 8. The petitioner made an application for further review of his case and that is Annexure 5 to the writ application. By Annexure 6 Oil refused to review it but made certain concession. They are as follows : (i) That subject to successful completion of training and passing of the required test the petitioner would be confirmed in Grade 'B' and would be eligible for next promotion to Grade III. (ii) That the experience of the petitioner outside Oil would also be considered 9. They are as follows : (i) That subject to successful completion of training and passing of the required test the petitioner would be confirmed in Grade 'B' and would be eligible for next promotion to Grade III. (ii) That the experience of the petitioner outside Oil would also be considered 9. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the authority that he should be reinstated in Grade 'C' of the service and made an appeal that he should be put at par with his other colleagues in all respects. Those appeal was not acceded to. The circular governing the promotion at that point of time is stated in paragraph 19 of the writ application and that is quoted below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 10. Ultimately, on 5.10.90 another application was filed by the petitioner which is Annexure 8 to the writ application and that is quoted below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 11. Thereafter on 16th October, 1990, the Central Govt issued a circular regarding this and that is Annexure 9 to the writ application and that is quoted below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 12.,Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear in an interview regarding employment of the petitioner in Oil and that is Annexure 10 to the writ application and that is quoted below : "We write with reference to your letter dated 5th October, 1990 seeking employment in Oil India Limited and are pleased to call you for an interview on Thursday, the 15th November, 1990 at 12.30 PM at Duliajan. 2.0 You are advised to report to the officer of the undersigned at the appointed place and time for the above interview." 13. Subsequently, on November 17, 1990. the petitioner was appointed as Senior Engineer (Contracts) in Grade 'C' in the Executive Cadre of Oil vide Annexure 11. The relevant clauses are quoted below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 14. The petitioner in terms of clause 13 quoted above signed the duplicate letter in token of his acceptance and joined in the service and thereafter on December 13. 1991 after the completion of 12 months, the petitioner wrote the following letter vide Annexure 13. That is quoted below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 15. The petitioner in terms of clause 13 quoted above signed the duplicate letter in token of his acceptance and joined in the service and thereafter on December 13. 1991 after the completion of 12 months, the petitioner wrote the following letter vide Annexure 13. That is quoted below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 15. The petitioner was given the seniority and other benefits as claimed by him and his grievance is that the other person who joined with him as trainee have already reached the stage of Grade D and E and he has been rotting in Grade 'C". Hence this writ application. 16.1 have heard Sri AR Barthakur, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri JP Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.l, 2 and 3. None appeared for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 at the time of hearing. 17. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.l, 2 and 3. Records also have been produced on behalf of these respondents. 18. The basic question which needs to be decided by this Court is what is the basis on which the petitioner was reinstated in the Oil and whether it is fresh appointment in the Oil or he was reinstated on the basis of the Assam Accord. 19. The next question which arises is that whether failure to make other persons as party will affect others if this petition is allowed, whether this petition is to be thrown out on the ground that necessary parties are not before this Court. Sri Barthakur urges that the petitioner has not claimed anything against them and what he has claimed is that he should be treated at par with other persons who joined with him as trainee. Sri Barthakur further urges that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be deemed to be a fresh appointment as fresh appointment is to be made by following a particular procedure but that was not done in the instant case. It is urged that in the case of the petitioner he alone was called for interview and after interviewing the order of appointment was passed. It is urged that in the case of the petitioner he alone was called for interview and after interviewing the order of appointment was passed. That it is not a fresh appointment can be determined from the fact that the petitioner was given 6 (six) increments at a stretch to bring him at par with the other employees who joined along with him as trainee and his grievance is that he should be given the seniority and continued in service and if is urged' that these two things are proved under the Assam Accord. It is further urged that if these two reliefs are granted that will not create any chaos in the service and that claim is equitable, just and reasonable. 20. A written argument was also filed on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand it is argued on behalf of the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner in the year 1990 was a fresh appointment and the petitioner cannot be given seniority over others as that will create a chaotic condition in the management. Regarding the salary of the petitioner, the authority took care of it and made provision for it by giving him increments. The period for which the petitioner was not in service of the Oil cannot be treated or deemed to be in service of Oil because at that point of time, the petitioner admittedly was working at some other place and earning there. So, the question of making payment of arrear to the petitioner and granting seniority to the petitioner as claimed does not arise. Further, it is urged that the petitioner accepted the offer of appointment in 1990 by signing the duplicate copy of the letter of appointment and later on he cannot make a grievance of it. The petitioner having accepted the offer once cannot later on make a summersault. He was subsequently confirmed and that also was accepted by the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the authority is not vindictive but the authority was most sympathetic and the authority has done for favour of the petitioner within the four corner of law without affecting the set up of the management. The management is duty bound not only to look to the interest of the petitioner but it must look also to the interest of other employees. The management is duty bound not only to look to the interest of the petitioner but it must look also to the interest of other employees. If the claim of the petitioner is given to him as claimed by him it will amount to undue bend ;is and that will cause injustice to other employees of Oil. It is argued that the claim of the petitioner for restoring seniority and continuity in service is not reasonable and justified. 21. Sri Barthakur, learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance in (1975) 3 SCC 503 (Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab & others) wherein he relied on. paragraph 9 of the judgment. The relevant portion of para 9 is quoted below : "Clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated October 25, 1965 provided that the seniority of the officers in the integrated service shall be determined by reference to the length of continuous service from the date of appointment in the group within their respective service. What was, therefore, required to be taken into account was the actual length of continuous service from the date of appointment and not the length of continuous service reckoned from an artificial date given by the State Government. Now, it is true that clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated October 25, 1965 was in the nature of administrative instruction, not having the force of law, but the State Government could not at its own sweet will depart from it without rational justification and fix an artificial date for commensing the length of continuous service in the case of some individual officers only for the purpose of giving them seniority in contravention of that clause. That would be clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The sweep of Articles 14 and 16 is wide and pervasive. These two Articles embody the principle of rationallity and they arc intended to strike against arbitrary and discriminatory action taken by the 'State'. Where the State Government departs from a principle of seniority laid down by it albreit by administrative instructions, and the departure is without reason and arbitrary, it would directly infringe the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16. It is interesting to notice that in the United States it is now well settled that an . Where the State Government departs from a principle of seniority laid down by it albreit by administrative instructions, and the departure is without reason and arbitrary, it would directly infringe the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16. It is interesting to notice that in the United States it is now well settled that an . executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its x actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. Vide the judgment of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Vitaralli vs. Seaton. This view is of course not based on the equality clause of the United States Constitution and it is evolved as a rule of administrative law. But the principle is the same, namely, that arbitrariness should be eliminated in State action." 22. That was a case where the appellant was a Class II Officer in the Public Health Service prior to its integration on July 15,1964 with the Provincial Civil Medical Service to which the respondent Nos.3 to 19 belonged. By an order dated April 8, 1964 respondent Nos.3 to 19 had been promoted to Class IPCMS with immediate effect. They however assumed charge of the higher posts only after April 27,1964. The appellant have been promoted with retrospective effect to Class I in his original PHS from April 25, 1964. 23. The inter se seniority on integration was to be decided by clause 2 (ii) of the memorandum dated October 15, 1965 "with reference to the length of continuous service from the date of appointment in the group". The State Government reckoned the date of appointment of respondent Nos.3 to 19 to be April 8, 1964 and placed them senior to the appellant. 24. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted the appellant's plea that the service of respondents started only when they took charge and since that was after April 25, 1964, the appellant was senior to them. That order was set aside by the Division Bench. On appeal the Supreme Court held that in order to understand the principle of seniority as laid down by the memorandum one must look to its purpose which show to follow a fair and just principle for determining their inter se seniority in the integrated service. That order was set aside by the Division Bench. On appeal the Supreme Court held that in order to understand the principle of seniority as laid down by the memorandum one must look to its purpose which show to follow a fair and just principle for determining their inter se seniority in the integrated service. So, the principle of length of continuous service from the date of appointment was applicable to officers coming from both the service for the purpose of fixing their inter se seniority in the integrated service. This case instead of helping the petitioner helps the respondents. That is not the facts of the case in hand. The petitioner herein was appointed as a trainee vide Annexure I and he did not complete the period of training. So at no point of time the petitioner was a regular employee of Oil and thereafter rightly or wrongly his training period was terminated on July 2. 1983 by Annexure 2. Thereafter by Annexure 11 he was appointed as Senior Engineer (Contracts) Grade "C" in the Executive Cadre of the company. So, he will be deemed to be an employee of the company on from that date and not earlier to it. So, the question of giving seniority to the petitioner from the date of his appointment as trainee vide Annexure I does not arise. 25. It is further urged that the appointment to Grade 'C-- vide the letter of appointment. Annexure 11 as indicated above is against the Oil Executive Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 1990 and guideline and reliance is placed on Rule 6.9. 6.10. 6.11 and 6.12. That is quoted below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 26. It is urged that as the petitioner was not appointed in compliance with this rule, it must be deemed that the petitioner was reinstated in service and he is not a fresh candidate/recruit. The petitioner wants to get assistance for this argument from the following things : (i) There was no advertisement in the Daily Newspaper as required by Rule 6.10 quoted above. (ii) Only the petitioner was called for interview and others were not called for interview. 27. The petitioner received certain benefits by way of direct recruitment and having received the benefits now he cannot move back and ask for something more to which is not eligible. (ii) Only the petitioner was called for interview and others were not called for interview. 27. The petitioner received certain benefits by way of direct recruitment and having received the benefits now he cannot move back and ask for something more to which is not eligible. There may be deviation from the recruitment rules in the case of the petitioner but that will not give a right to the petitioner to agitate the question of seniority as is done in this case. The moot question is that from what date the petitioner can be deemed to be employee of the Oil. He will be deemed to be an employee of the authority only from the date on which he was appointed. The letter of appointment as Executive Trainee shows as follows : (clause 7 of Annexure 1) "After completion of a total 12 months trainee a written test and interview will be held to assess your suitability for absorption into the Company's executive cadre." 28. Clause 8 of the appointment letter provides as follows : "Subject to your qualifying in the test referred to in paragraph 7 above and subject to there being suitable vacancies, you will be considered for employment in the Executive Cadre of the company on probation for a period of 6 months on a basic salary of Rs.805/- per month with dearness allowance of Rs.375/- per month and additional dearness allowance Rs.75/- per month. On satisfactory completion of probationary period you will be confirmed in the Executive Cadre." 29. As the service of the petitioner was terminated whether rightly or wrongly before the completion of the training he did not belong to the Executive Cadre of the company and on the facts and circumstances of this case I find that the petitioner was a direct recruit to Grade 'C' and from the date on which he was appointed vide Annexure 11. So, he can get his seniority on and from that date only and that seniority cannot go back for a period of which the petitioner cannot be deemed to be an employee of Oil. 30. The next case relied on by Sri Barthakur is (1979) 3 SCC 489 (Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & others). So, he can get his seniority on and from that date only and that seniority cannot go back for a period of which the petitioner cannot be deemed to be an employee of Oil. 30. The next case relied on by Sri Barthakur is (1979) 3 SCC 489 (Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & others). That is the case of Airport Authority and Sri Barthakur relied on paragraph 10 of that judgment which is quoted below : "2 (a) It is well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which is professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. The defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency must be scrupulously observed. This rule, though supportable also as emanating from Articles 14, does not rest merely on that Article. It has an independent existence apart from Article 14. It is a rule of administrative law which has been judicially evolved as a check against exercise of arbitrary power by the executive authority. It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affectation of some right or denial of some privilege." 31. As indicated above, I find that the authority was generous to the petitioner and whatever is possible was given. From the record it will be seen that the executive training scheme was brought into existence by Memo dated 10.3.82 and it is seen that one is deemed to be an employee of the Oil only after the completion of the training. During the period of training the trainee were asked to sign a bond that was done by the petitioner and the petitioner decided to resign from the training scheme in February, 1983 thereafter even on 35th December, 1983 the petitioner wrote as follows : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 32. During the period of training the trainee were asked to sign a bond that was done by the petitioner and the petitioner decided to resign from the training scheme in February, 1983 thereafter even on 35th December, 1983 the petitioner wrote as follows : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 32. Thereafter it is seen from the record that the Senior Executive of the company requested the other employer to sympathetically consider the case of the petitioner. This shows that the authority instead of being vindictive wanted to held the petitioner. Even on January 6, 1986 the petitioner was reinstated in service and he was asked to undergo remaining training for the period of 4 months but that was not heeded by the petitioner, the petitioner did not avail that opportunity and used to write series of letter and there is a note by the authority as follows : "This was as per discussion with DP, who wanted Shri AKK to make an application showing his desire to join Oil and also giving his experience, so that he can be fitted to the right Department based on his experience." 33. It was on the basis of this note that the petitioner was asked to appear in the interview and thereafter he was appointed directly to Grade 'C' on 17.11.90. 34. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.