V.S.Sirpurkar, J.: The Railway Administration has come up in a writ petition before us, against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), allowing the application filed by the second respondent. 2. The second respondent entered the service in the South Central Railway in the post of Traffic Signaller. Eventually, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Station Master, then to Station Master Grade III and ultimately to Station Master Grade II, where his pay was Rs.1600-2660. He was then serving in the Hubli Division in Karnataka. From there, he sought transfer to the Southern Railway, which transfer was given, but strangely he was placed in the grade of Rs.1200-2040. For this, the Railway Board relied upon their resolution that where there is a transfer from one Railway to another, the person concerned would be entitled to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list only. Their case further was that the transfer from one Railway to another can be done only and only if the post in which such an employee was transferred had the element of direct recruitment. Their case is that since the post of Station Master did not have the element of direct recruitment. Their case is that since the post of Station Master did not have the element of direct recruitment, they placed him in the post of Assistant Station Master, which had the element of direct recruitment and therefore he was bound to be placed in the lower pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. Aggrieved by this, the second respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the Original Application and directed that he shall be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660, which was applicable to the Station Master Grade II, but in that his seniority shall be at the bottom. 3. Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the Railway Administration forcefully argues that though it was possible for an employee to seek transfer from one Railway to another like the second respondent, that can be done only if such an employee sought for a post, which could be filled in by direct recruitment fully or partly. For this, the learned counsel invites our attention to the decision of the Railway Ministry under Rule 226 of the Railway Establishment Code. For this, the learned counsel invites our attention to the decision of the Railway Ministry under Rule 226 of the Railway Establishment Code. Seeing the rule, there could be no doubt that a transfer can be ordered, which would be undoubtedly a ‘sought transfer’ or a ‘request transfer’ of the Railway employee from one Railway to another on special cases of hardships. However, the Rule goes on to say that such person, who is transferred from one Railway to another would be placed below all the existing confirmed and officiating staff in the relevant grade in the promotion group in the new establishment, irrespective of his date of confirmation or length of officiating service. 4. The learned counsel points out that Para 312 of the Railway Establishment Manual provides for the definition of the expression “relevant grade”. She further points out the requirement in this para to the following effect: “No such transfers should be allowed in the intermediate grades in which all the posts are filled entirely by promotion of staff from the lower grade(s) and there is no element of direct recruitment.” 5. Learned counsel then goes on to suggest that though the transfer of the second respondent was possible from South Central Railway to the Southern Railway, he could have been placed only in a post in which there was possibility of full or part direct recruitment and the post of a Station Master did not have such direct recruitment, as under para 125 the Station Master post could be filled in only from amongst the Traffic Apprentices and the respondent did not have the necessary qualification for being selected as a Traffic Apprentice. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent argued that there is no such post as a Traffic Apprentice. In fact, the plain reading of the Rule itself would suggest that the Traffic Apprentices are employed for being posted as Section Controllers, Station Masters, Yard Masters and Traffic Inspectors etc., Learned Counsel for the respondent points out that the Tribunal has dealt with this aspect in the following manner: “We have to notice this argument only to dismiss it. It is futile to contend that there is no element of direct recruitment to the post of Station Masters and a few other posts are compendiously grouped as ‘Traffic Apprentices’ for the purpose of direct recruitment.” 7. It is futile to contend that there is no element of direct recruitment to the post of Station Masters and a few other posts are compendiously grouped as ‘Traffic Apprentices’ for the purpose of direct recruitment.” 7. In short, the learned counsel for the second respondent points out that the three or four posts mentioned in para 125 are jointly known as the post of ‘Traffic Apprentice’, but that does not stop them from the posts being nomenclatured separately as Section Controllers, Station Masters, Yard Master and Traffic Inspectors. Learned Counsel therefore argues, and in our opinion rightly, that the Station Master posts always had an element of direct recruitment to the extent of 25%. The argument is absolutely correct. 8. The argument raised on behalf of the writ petitioner- Railway Board must fail for the simple reason that it is a trite principle that where the concerned person has to be put at the bottom of the seniority for doing so he cannot be straight away reverted to the post in which he as working earlier. Here is clear example where a person who was working as Assistant Station Master and had earned two promotions, is being posted in the post which is two stages below the post of Station Master, merely because of his request transfer. This is to say the least absurd interpretation of the rule. 9. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has correctly read the rule and has ordered the second respondent to be placed in the pay scale applicable to the Station Master Grade II. The writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.14485 of 2000 is also dismissed.