ORDER : G.B. Pattanaik, J This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') which has followed the opinion expressed by the Full Bench on the question as to whether the services rendered in an ex-cadre post could be counted for the purposes of seniority in the cadre. The Full Bench has opined that the services rendered against an ex cadre post cannot be counted for the purposes of seniority in the cadre. 2. The appellant's OA having been dismissed by the Division Bench the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Be it stated that both the appellants initially were appointed as Way Inspectors in the Civil Engineering Department of the Railways. Later on, a Track Machine Organisation was formed in the year 1974. The options from the appointees were called for on certain terms and conditions. The present appellants having opted to go into the Track Machine Organisation, they were taken into the said organisation. Within the Track Machine Organisation, they were duly promoted to the post of Foreman on 2.8.1979 in one case, and on 11.11.1980 in the other. 4. While the Track Machine Organisation continued as a separate cadre, on 1.11.1986 a separate cadre was formed in the Civil Engineering Department of the South Central Railways. These appellants were brought in and a seniority list was drawn up. In the said seniority list obviously, the period they served as Foreman in the Track Machine Organisation was not taken into account. 5. The appellants assailed the said seniority list on the ground that they having been duly selected and acted as Foreman from 2.8.1979 and 11.11.1980, there is no rhyme and reason not to count that period for the purposes of their seniority in the cadre of Foreman as that would accelerate their chance of further promotion in the cadre. The Tribunal having rejected the same, the present appeal by special leave has been preferred. 6. Mr. Nageshwar Rao, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants vehmently contended that the promotion of these appellants as Foreman having been duly made and they having been duly selected, it would be quite unjust in not taking the period of services rendered by them as Foreman for the purposes of reckoning the seniority of Foreman when the separate cadre was formed on 1.11.1986. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Pratap Narain & Ors. [ (1992) 3 SCC 268 ]. 7. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the seniority is determined amongst the employees in a cadre and therefore unless there is any specific rule or regulation, the question of counting the services rendered in any ex cadre post would not arise. 8. Having examined the rival submissions, as well as the aforesaid judgment of this Court on which Mr. Nageshwar Rao has relied upon, we are of the considered opinion that the services rendered by an employee against any ex cadre post would not be counted for the purposes of seniority in the cadre unless and until there is any specific rule or administrative instruction governing the field. 9. There is nothing in the option which the employees exercised when they went to Track Machine Organisation to indicate that the employer at given point of time gave any assurance that their services would be counted for the purposes of seniority in the cadre. Since the cadre is the unit strength determined by the employer in a service, services rendered against any post outside the cadre could not be counted for the purposes of seniority. In that view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment requiring our interference. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.