M. KATJU, J, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6-11-97 (Annexure 11 to the peti tion) praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the up gradation of the petitioners to the post of Super intendent of Central Excise on the basis of their total length of service in the depart ment disregarding the seniority list prepared by the department. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners are all Inspec tors in the Central Excise Department who were appointed prior to 2-8-82 as stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. It appears that the Ministry of Finance, Government of India issued a letter dated 10-9-96 (Annexure 1 to the petition) ad dressed to all the Heads of Department under the Central Board of Excise and Customs and conveyed the sanction for up gradation of 716 posts of Inspectors to the post of Superintendent in various Central Excise Departments. Thereafter the Central Government issued a letter dated 23-7-96 to all the Commissioners of the Central Excise mentioning the manner in which the up gradation is to be done. The petitioners have urged that they were entitled to be appointed against the upgraded post of Superintendent on the basis of their length of service but instead their juniors have been appointed Super intendents whereas the petitioners have remained as Inspectors. The petitioners contention is that the entire service as Inspector is to be seen and not merely the length of service at the place of posting. The petitioners filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed by the impugned order and hence this petition. 3. We have perused the impugned order as well as the writ petition, counter-affidavit and rejoinder- affidavit. 4. In paragraph 5 to the counter-af fidavit it is stated that under the relevant Rules the seniority of Inspectors of Central Excise is Collectorate-wise (now Commissioner wise) vide Rule 5 of the Central Excise and Land Customs Depart ment Group-C Posts Recruitment Rules 1979. The said rule read as follows : "5 (1)-Special provision regarding Collec-torate-Each Collectorate shall have its own separate cadre unless otherwise prescribed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. " 5. It appears that the petitioners re quested for change of their Collectorate and their transfer to a different cadre. The said rule read as follows : "5 (1)-Special provision regarding Collec-torate-Each Collectorate shall have its own separate cadre unless otherwise prescribed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. " 5. It appears that the petitioners re quested for change of their Collectorate and their transfer to a different cadre. This was granted on the condition that they would be placed at the bottom in seniority list in the new cadre after the change of their cadre, and they accepted this condi tion. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have urged that the petitioners are not being treated as eligible for ap pointment on the upgraded post of Super intendent. Learned Counsel for the respondents have, however, denied this and have urged that the petitioners are being treated as eligible but in accordance with the letter of the Central Government dated 23-7-96 (Annexure 2 to the petition), the appointments on the upgraded posts of Superintendent is being done on the basis of seniority. A perusal of the order dated 23-7-96 shows that Note 1 at the bottom of this order states "the above statement should be certified to be correct according to the seniority list and should be in order as appearing in the seniority list. " 7. No doubt the petitioners are eligible for appointment on the upgraded post of Superintendent since they were appointed prior to 2-8-82 as Inspectors, but in our opinion the petitioners being at the bottom of the seniority list will have to wait their turn and will only be considered after the persons seniors to them are first considered. The petitioners voluntarily gave up their seniority by choosing a dif ferent cadre and hence they cannot com plain now. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Runu Mallik v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1152. In our opinion the said decision is distinguishable, rather the said decision supports the respondents. In the decision it was held by the Supreme Court that once a person opts for another cadre that has no relevance for judging his eligibility for promotion but his seniority is taken away. That is the precise position in the resent case also. The petitioners having opted for another cadre have lost their seniority. In the decision it was held by the Supreme Court that once a person opts for another cadre that has no relevance for judging his eligibility for promotion but his seniority is taken away. That is the precise position in the resent case also. The petitioners having opted for another cadre have lost their seniority. Hence though they are eligible for ap pointment on the upgraded post they will have to wait for their turn since they are at the bottom in the seniority. 8. In paragraph 5 to the counter-af fidavit the inter-se seniority has been shown in a Chart and the petitioners are far below those selected. Since the upgraded posts are few while the eligible candidates are much more obviously all the eligible persons cannot be appointed as Superintendents. 9. The view which we are taking is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and another v. V. M. Joseph. In that decision also the Supreme Court has held that eligibility cannot be confused with seniority. In the present case while the petitioners are certainly eligible for being appointed as Superintendent they have not acquired the seniority for the purpose. They can only be considered when those seniors to them are first considered. Hence there is not force in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .