JUDGMENT Misra, J -- 1. Warrantableness of the order dated 8.7.1997 passed III WPNo.2659/1994 by a learned Single Judge of this Court is called in question under clause 10 of the letters patent Appeal. 2. The facts as have been uncurtained are that the appellant as the writ petitioner moved this Court invoking its extra ordinarily jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashment of the order dated 8.11.89 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) whereby the respondent No.3, E. Vinod Prakash was absorbed as Head Clerk with effect from 8.8.89. As the said respondent was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent. An amendment was made for quashing the order of promotion. It was further prayed in the writ petition to quash the promotion of respondent No.4, K.L. Sinde, to the post of Head Clerk. It was put forth in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Regional Forest Research Centre in February, 1971. She was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 4.11.86 As one post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant fell vacant the Regional Forest Research Centre, Jabalpur by communication dated 13.3.86, Annexure-R-1, wrote to the Forest Organisation to forward the name of the eligible candidates for filling of post of Head Clerks on promotion/transfer or on deputation basis. The Recruitment Rules stipulated for filling up of the post of Head Clerk either by promotion from Upper Division Clerk with five years service in the grade or by transfer on Deputation from Head Clerks or Upper Division Clerks with five years service in the grade of Forest Research Institution and College, failing which by Deputation of Head Clerks or Upper Division Clerks with five years service in the grade working in other Subordinate Office under the Department of Forest and Wild Life, Ministry of Environment and Forest. The Rules proyide that the period of Deputation ordinarily shall not exceed three years. Name of the respondent No.3 who was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Statistical Branch of Forest Research Institute and College, Dheradhun was forwarded and the Regional Forest Research Centre, Jabalpur by its letter dated 15.5.86 offered appointment by transfer on Deputation to the post of Head Clerk-cum- Accountant and he was asked to submit his willingness by 15.6.86. Name of the respondent No.3 who was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Statistical Branch of Forest Research Institute and College, Dheradhun was forwarded and the Regional Forest Research Centre, Jabalpur by its letter dated 15.5.86 offered appointment by transfer on Deputation to the post of Head Clerk-cum- Accountant and he was asked to submit his willingness by 15.6.86. The respondent No. 3 did not join the Regional Forest Centre and by communication dated 6.6.86 addressed to the Registrar of the Forest Research Institution and College requested him to relieve respondent No.3 as the work of the Regional Forest Research Centre was suffering. Eventually, the respondent No.3 joined as head Clerk in August, 1986. Thereafter, the said respondent was absorbed as Head Clerk in the Institute of Deciduous Forest (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') with effect from 8.8.89. Thereafter, he was given further promotion as Office Superintendent in March, 1995. These orders were sought to be quested in the writ petition. The further grievance of the petitioner related to the promotion of respondent No.4 as Head Clerk in the month of March, 1995. According to the petitioner the respondent No.4 was working in the Forest Ranger College, Balaghat as Upper Division Clerk (UDC). By order dated 21.3.90, on account of closure of the said College the respondent No. 3 was posted as Upper Division Clerk at the Institute of Deciduous Forest on 31.3.90. The said respondent was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in the month of June, 1986 in the Forest Ranger College. The said respondent was considered for promotion, and eventually promoted to the post of Head Clerk. These orders were impugned before the learned Single Judge. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the absorption of respondent No.3 as Head Clerk was illegal. The learned Single Judge noted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein and observed that for the promotion to the post of Head Clerk having five years experience as UDC is necessary and at the time of deputation as well as absorption of the respondent No.3 as Head Clerk the petitioner was not eligible for consideration for promotion, and therefore, she was not a person aggrieved. As far as second grievance of the petitioner is concerned it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the respondent No.4 was redeployed/adjusted in the Institute, with effect from 1.4.90, and therefore, he was a surplus staff and seniority of surplus staff has to be reckoned from 1.4.90. It was further put forth that if the seniority of the respondent No.4 was reckoned from 1.4.90 the petitioner would be senior to him, and therefore, she was to be treated as senior to him and in priority of consideration her name would have featured but without considering her case promotion has been conferred on respondent No.4. 3. The learned Single Judge, however, did not accept the contention that the respondent No.4 was surplus staff and was redeployed to be absorbed in the Institute. Being of this view he did not find any merit in the case of the petitioner and, accordingly, dismissed the same. 4. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned counsel for the appellant, has fairly not challenged the promotion of respondent No.3 as factually it is perceptible that by the time benefit was conferred on respondent No. 3 the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification. As the same was not urged there is no necessity to address with regard to the grievance of the appellant on the score. As far as the challenge to the respondent No. 4's promotion is concerned Mr. Rohit Arya has contended that he was a surplus staff having been redeployed and adjusted after closure of Forest Ranger College, Balaghat. It is his submission that once he IS treated as a surplus staff his seniority has to be computed from the date of his Joining at the institute. Mr. Tankha, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, in his turn, has contended that the case of the respondent No.4 was not that of deployment but was case of transfer and posting, and therefore, the seniority of the said respondent was not affected. It is further submission that the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 is not applicable to the present case as the fact situation is quite different. It is further submission that the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 is not applicable to the present case as the fact situation is quite different. The learned counsel has further submitted that the various Forest Colleges were taken under the Institute and as there was some delay in taking over of the Balaghat College the staff of the said college were adjusted in the Institute later on, and hence, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that respondent No. 4 was redeployed being a member of the surplus staff. It is also canvassed by Mr. Tankha that the respondent No.4 had requisite qualification and was protected by Departmental Circulars. Mr. Fiyaz Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has canvassed the similar arguments as putforth by Mr. Tankha. 5. The core question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent No.4 was redeployed as surplus staff to the institute or not. To appreciate the factual matrix, it is essential to see the posting order of respondent. No.4 in the said institute. It is apparent from order dated 21.3.90 that the college at Balaghat was closed on 31.3.90 vide communication dated 15.03.90 By the order dated 21.3.90 passed by the Under Secretary. Government of India. the respondent No.3 was posted at the institute as an Upper Division Clerk Submission of Mr. Arya is that once there is closure and an employee is given posting elsewhere by operation of law he becomes a surplus staff. To substantiate this submission, he has relied upon the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary, Government of India in an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal where it was mentioned that after the closure of the College the staff became surplus. He has also referred to some relevant Rules which we will deal with at later stage. In the present counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 to 3 the stand is as follows: ".. It is also pointed out that after closure of Forest Ranger College, Balaghat an Upper Division Clerk Shri K.L. Shinde, senior to the petitioner appointed in the month of June 1986 has also been transferred to the Institute of Deciduous Forest. Jabalpur vide Ministry of Environment and Forests order No. 3-27/87-RT, dt. 21.03.1990." 6. Apart from this affidavit, the communication dated 26.6.1990. Annexure-R/4 has also been relied upon. Jabalpur vide Ministry of Environment and Forests order No. 3-27/87-RT, dt. 21.03.1990." 6. Apart from this affidavit, the communication dated 26.6.1990. Annexure-R/4 has also been relied upon. It reads as under: "In pursuance of Government of India Resolution No. 15-48/86-RT dated 31.12.1986 copy enclosed as Annexure-A, the Central Government hereby transfers the Forest Rangers College, Balaghat to the Government of Madhya Pradesh with effect from 1.4.1990. The buildings as at Annexure B-1 and B-2 and other assets as at Annexures-C and D are also transferred to the State Government free of cost. Proportionate revenue towards tutor fee in respect of Rangers trainees (both batches) will be credited to the Revenue Accounts of Government of India and rest will be transferred to the State Government. Balance of Pay/Stipend, study tour expenses and equipment allowance will be transferred to the Government of Madhya Pradesh." In this backdrop, before we advert to the respective submissions canvassed by the counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to refer to certain essential facts. 7. It is the admitted position that on 28th March, 1988 the Government of India in the Department of Ministry of Environment and Forest decided to re-organize the Forest Research Institutes in the country, and accordingly, five research institutes were established in different regions of the country in addition to the existing institute at Dehradun. Institute of Deciduous Forest (lDF) xx..xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx was one of such five institutes, which \\as established at Jabalpur. Initially, the Institute consisted of Regional Forest Research Centre. Jabalpur, Systematic Botony Scheme, Jabalpur. Forest-cum-vegetation Survey Jabalpur, disease and Insects Survey, Jabalpur, Minor Forest Products Scheme, Jabalpur Seed Procurement and Tree Improvement (Indo-Daniesh) Project, Jabalpur, Eucalyptus Research Centre, Hyderabad Tropical Pine Research Centre, Loraput (orissa) and Cash Crops, Chanderpur and Bhandara. The petitioner, because of his posting at Regional. Forest Research Centre Jabalpur, was transferred to the Institute. All the existing staff of various schemes were transferred to the newly formed Institute. Deputationists from other departments of the State Government were repatriated. Later on, the Balaghat College after its closure became a part of the Institute. In this background, the sole question that really arises for consideration is whether the respondent No.4 was a surplus staff one whether he was redeployed or it was an adjustment by way of posting in the institute. 8. Mr. Later on, the Balaghat College after its closure became a part of the Institute. In this background, the sole question that really arises for consideration is whether the respondent No.4 was a surplus staff one whether he was redeployed or it was an adjustment by way of posting in the institute. 8. Mr. Arya, learned counsel for the appellant, would like us to interpret this as a redeployment on the ground that the respondent No.4 had already become a surplus staff. In this context, we may refer to the order passed by the learned Single Judge who was pleased to refer to letter dated 29th November. 1996 of the Ministry of Environment and Forest which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. We think it apposite to reproduce that letter in entirety. The said letter reads as under: "I am directed to refer to your letter No 36.6.93-ICFRE dated 3.10.96 on the subject mentioned above to say that the case has been examined in the Ministry in consultation with the Integrated Finance Division and they observed that the adjustment of these personnel against the post of RA/TA in itself was inappropriate and they must acquire the basic qualification necessary for these appointments. Their pay, however, needs to be protected by sanctioning personal pay, if necessary, to be adjusted against further increase in pay. The adjusted employees will have to count their seniority from the date they were appointed against the new posts to which they were appointed/adjusted on closure of the Rangers College." Relying on the aforesaid letter, it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the respondent No 4's seniority has to be counted from the date he was appointed against the new post. Learned Single Judge after taking note of that aforesaid letter, has considered the explanation offered by the respondents and eventually came to hold that the respondent No. 4 was not appointed as surplus staff. Before us the said letter has also been relied upon. Apart from relying upon that letter, the learned counsel has also referred to the affidavit which was filed by the Under Secretary before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Before us the said letter has also been relied upon. Apart from relying upon that letter, the learned counsel has also referred to the affidavit which was filed by the Under Secretary before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In this connection, we would like to refer to Government letter No.3.9.94-RT issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on 15.11.95 which reads as under: "I am directed to refer to your Fax No. 3397/95/TFRI/JBP dated 14.11.1995 on the subject mentioned above and to inform that in para No.5, 11 the everment made by the petitioner that the promotion of the respondent No. 4 to 10 to the next higher post is contrary to provision of C.C.B. Redeployment of surplus staff (Rule, 1990) is not correct, the staff were not redeployed from the surplus cell but were posted to other subordinate officers of this Ministry after closure of Chandrapur and Balaghat Rangers Colleges according to vacancies available at that time under this Ministry." In view of the asforesaid stand, we think it appropriate to consider the factual matrix in the backdrop of the Rules that govern the field. 9. We are conscious that the department has distinguished the employees into two categories viz. the employees who had the requisite qualification at the time of the closure and the other employees who did not have the essential qualification. We may hasten to add that such a stand is not very clear from the letters issued by them. Be that as it may, the heart of the matter is whether the respondent No.4 was posted in the institute as a surplus staff. Reference to certain essential facts and the rules would make it clear. 10. As we have noted earlier, the closure was effected with effect from 31.3.90. Some of the staff was posted to the Institute. The said posting was ordered on 21.3.90. This factual aspect is not in dispute. 11. The rules dealing with surplus came into effect from 28.2.90. Rule 2(f) deals with Redeployment. It reads as under: "2(f) Redeployment means the appointment of surplus employee against a vacancy in a Central Civil Service or post in accordance with these rules: In Rule 2(g) Surplus Staff has been defined. It reads as under:"2(g) 'Surplus Staff and 'surplus employee or employees' means the Central Civil Servants (other than those employed on ad hoc. It reads as under: "2(f) Redeployment means the appointment of surplus employee against a vacancy in a Central Civil Service or post in accordance with these rules: In Rule 2(g) Surplus Staff has been defined. It reads as under:"2(g) 'Surplus Staff and 'surplus employee or employees' means the Central Civil Servants (other than those employed on ad hoc. Casual work-charged or contract basis) who:- (a) are permanent or, if temporary have rendered not less than five years regular continuous service: and (b) have been rendered surplus alongwith the posts from their Ministries, Departments offices of the Government of India, as a result. of– (i) administrative and financial reforms, including inter alia, restructuring of an organisation, zero base budgeting, transfer of an activity to a State Government. Public Sector Undertaking or other autonomous organisation, discontinuation of an on-going activity, and introduction of changes in technology: or. (ii) studies of work measurement undertaken by the Staff Inspection Unit of the Ministry of Finance or any other body set up by the Central Government or the Ministry Department concerned: or (iii) abolition or winding up either in whole or in part of an organisation of the Central Government.: " 12. Mr. Arya has given immense emphasis on the rule 2(g) (b) (iii) Submission of the counsel for the appellant is that immediately after winding up the staff became surplus staff. In this connection, we think it appropriate to refer to Rule 4 which deals with "Redeployment of surplus staff and surplus employee or surplus employees". For our purposes Sub-Rule 6 is relevant. It reads thus:(6) Absorption of surplus staff within the Ministry or Department-notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2X3X 4) and (5) and subject to the provisions of Rule 12, the Ministry of Head of Department may, under intimation to the concerned Cell, adjust an employee declared surplus by it against a vacancy (if any available at the time he is declared surplus or before he is redeployed cell) in any post located in any office under its control and carrying equivalent pay scale for appointment to which he is considered by the appointing authority to be suitable." 13. It is worthwhile to state here that Rule 11 deals with "Imparting of training to Surplus Staff in certain cases after redeployment or re-adjustment as the case may be. It is necessary to quote Rule 11. It is worthwhile to state here that Rule 11 deals with "Imparting of training to Surplus Staff in certain cases after redeployment or re-adjustment as the case may be. It is necessary to quote Rule 11. "11.Imparting of training to Surplus Staff in certain cases. (1) If the authority incharge of a Cell is of the opinion that a surplus employee cannot be usefully redeployed unless he is given training in• certain additional skills, it may nominate him to a suitable course of training. (2) During the period of training the employee shall continue to be borne on the Surplus Staff Establishment of his parent organisation and shall be paid pay and allowances at the rates already admissible to him. (3) During training the surplus employee shall abide by the directions of the training authority, including those for his staying in hostel in the case of residential course. (4) Notwithstanding that a surplus employee is on training the Cell may nominate him or sponsor his candidature for any suitable post, and on receipt of offer or orders of appointment, he may at any stage during the course, be relieved to join the post. (5) In the event of refusal to join the training course or failure to join the same, without providing proper justification therefor, action shall be taken to abolish his surplus post forthwith:" Relying on these Rules it is vehemently urged by Mr. Arya that there was closure of the college. The Staff became automatically surplus and once they were surplus, they were adjusted in the department as per sub-rule (6) of rule 4 in the same department and hence, their seniority will have to be computed from that date. In this context, Mr. Arya has relied on the decision rendered in the case of V.K. Dubey and others v. Union of India and others, (1997) 5 SCC 81 , Yogendra Prasad Mandai v. State of Bihar and others, (1998) 3 SCC 137 and Union of India and others V. K. Savitri and others, (1998) 4 SCC 358 . There is no dispute about the proposition of law that after an employee is redeployed or adjusted being a surplus staff in a different department or Institute, his seniority has to be computed from the date his appointment takes effect in the organisation and there would be no continuity of service and no preservation of seniority. 14. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that after an employee is redeployed or adjusted being a surplus staff in a different department or Institute, his seniority has to be computed from the date his appointment takes effect in the organisation and there would be no continuity of service and no preservation of seniority. 14. We have bestowed our studied consideration to the fact situation. The fact remains that the college was closed with effect from 31.3.90 and the respondent No.4 was posted to the Institute as an Upper Division Clerk. Nowhere the respondent No.4 was declared as a surplus staff. There was no reporting to the Surplus staff. There was no reporting to the Surplus Cell. There was no recommendation by the Surplus Cell as enjoined under Rule 4. Mr. Arya has heavily relied on sub-rule (6) of rule to emphasize that this posting would come within that clause. We are afraid we cannot accept such an interpretation. There is no factual averment that the respondent No. 4 was adjusted inter departmentally under intimation to the concerned Cell. It has to be borne in mind that the college was closed with effect from 31.3.90 and the posting orders were passed on 21.3.90. The respondent No.4 was a qualified Upper Division Clerk. The Department thought it appropriate to transfer and post some of the qualified persons in the Institute. The procedure envisaged in the Rules were not taken recourse to. In view of this factual matrix we are of the considered opinion that the 'respondent No.4 was not a surplus staff. Once it is held that he was not a surplus staff, his seniority will have to be preserved and once the seniority is retained, he becomes senior to petitioner and also comes within the zone of consideration of promotion to the higher post the counsel for the appellant has not addressed us in, regard to any illegality in the procedure for his consideration. Hence, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Hon 'ble Single Judge is impeccable and accordingly we concur with the same. 15. Resultantly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, fails and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.