A. K. Sikri ( 1 ) IN this Writ Petition the petitioner has raised a dispute of his seniority qua the respondents 2 and 3 and he alleges that while fixing the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondents 2 and 3 the respondent no. 1/department has ignored the mandate of rules 114 and 115 of the Research and Analysis wing, ros Rules 1975. He had filed Original Application no. 1953/99 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, principal Bench, New Delhi for redressal of his grievance. However, the learned Tribunal has dismissed his Original Application vide judgment dated 13th february, 2001. He alleges that the learned Tribunal has given wrong interpretation to the aforesaid Rules while dismissing his Original Application. ( 2 ) BEFORE we state the issue in some detail and embark to decide the same, it would be appropriate to take stock of the relevant facts. The facts of this case being crucial, the entire decision and the interpretation of the aforesaid Rules depends on the same. ( 3 ) INITIALLY the Research and Analysis wing chereinafter referred to as RAW, for short) was a part of Cabinet Secretariat. The petitioner joined the cabinet Secretariat (RAW) as a Stenographer Grade-II on 23rd December, 1968. Thereafter on 26th March, 1969 he was appointed in the same Department as Stenographer grade-II through direct recruitment, against a temporary post. The petitioner was declared quasi- permanent from 26th March, 1972 on completion of three years service. The respondent no. 2 Joined All India radio as Stenographer Grade-II on 1st February, 1971 and the respondent no. 3 got appointment as Stenographer grade-II in Karnataka Police on 30th March, 1972. The respondent no. 2 however came to the Cabinet Secretariat (RAW) on 19th July, 1972 as Stenographer Grade-II. Likewise the respondent no. 3 also joined this department on deputation as Stenographer Grade-II w. e. f. 1st September, 1972. ( 4 ) IN the year 1975, RAW was constituted as a separate service. The rules were accordingly modified which came into effect on 21st October, 1975. At that time, the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 and 3 were working in RAW; the respondents 2 and 3 who being on deputation basis. ( 5 ) RULE 114 of the aforesaid Rules provide for initial constitution of service. Rule 115 lays down the principle of fixing seniority. At that time, the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 and 3 were working in RAW; the respondents 2 and 3 who being on deputation basis. ( 5 ) RULE 114 of the aforesaid Rules provide for initial constitution of service. Rule 115 lays down the principle of fixing seniority. Rule 116 deals with maintenance of the service, after its initial constitution. Since all these Rules have a bearing on the present case it would be apposite to extract these rules before proceeding further- "rule 114 : Initial Constitution: (1) The initial constitution of the secretarial, Ministerial and Accounts cadre shall be from such date as the government may by notification, specify and as provided in sub rules (2) to (6 ). (2) The permanent directly recruited personnel serving in each grade of each sub cadre at the commencement of these rules, including those transferred from the intelligence Bureau to the Research and Analysis wing after the formation of the latter but before the commencement of these rules, shall be absorbed permanently in the grade equivalent to their substantive grades on the date of absorption unless they are appointed in a substantive capacity to higher grades in accordance with sub rules (4), (5) and (6 ). (3) After making permanent appointments in the manner specified in sub rule 2, the controlling authority shall constitute a special selection Board consisting of three members nominated by it for filling the vacancies both permanent and temporary, in each grade of each sub-cadre. (4)The Board shall make the selection from amongst: (a) all directly recruited personnel who are temporary or regularly officiating in each grade including those transferred to the RAW from the IB after the formation of the Randaw but before the commencement of these rules; and (b) the personnel from other Government departments and services serving in the corresponding grades or those eligible for appointment to the corresponding grades in accordance with the provisions of rule 116, preference being given to the personnel on deputation to the Randaw. (5) The Board shall prepare a select list of the personnel referred to in sub rule 4 for absorption in each grade of each sub cadre and arrange the names of the serected directly recruited personnel in the order of seniority and thereafter place the names of the selected personnel from other departments and Services in the order of their merit. (6) The permanent vacancies will be filled from the select list in the order in which the names are included in the select list. Rule 115. Seniority: (1) The seniority of the personnel absorbed in each grade of each sub cadre at its initial constitution shall be determined in the manner specified in sub rule (2) and (3 ). (2) The personnel whose seniority is governed by the orders which were in force immediately before the issue of the govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs office Memo No. 9/1155-RPS dated 22. 12. 1959, shall continue to retain their seniority in accordance with those orders. (3) The personnel whose seniority is governed by the orders contained in the o. M. of Ministry of Home Affairs referred to in sub rule 2 shall have their seniority fixed on the basis of their confirmation in the respective grades either on absorption in the Randaw or in the Department or Service to which they belonged immediately before such absorption, whichever is earlier : provided that where the date of confirmation is the same in respect of two or more persons, their inter se seniority shall be in accordance with the length of continuous service rendered by each of them in the particular grade on a regular officiating basis in Randaw and in the Department or service to which belonged immediately before their absorption in the sub cadre. Rule 116. Maintenance: After the initial constitution of the various grades in the Secretarial, Ministerial and Accounts cadre has been completed, the cadre shall be maintained by appointment on promotion, deputation, re-employment after retirement and by direct recruitment in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule XII. Provided that: (i) the Head of Organisation may appoint officers on deputation in an lower grade to post in a higher grade in the quota for deputation or re-employment after retirement. (ii) the Head of the Organisation may fill posts in the quota for deputation or re-employment after retirement by officiating promotion of direct entrants; and (iii) in case no suitable or eligible direct entrants are available for promotion to the higher grade, the head of the Organisation may fill the vacancies in the quota for promotion by appointing persons on deputation or re-employment of retired Government servants. " ( 6 ) COMING back to the narration of facts, an order was passed under Rule 114 appointing several personal Assistants in a substantive capacity w. e. f. 1st February, 1983 at the initial, constitution of general Duty Ministerial Cadre. The name of the petitioner in this list was at serial no. 41. This list however, did not include the names of the respondents 2 and 3. In respect of the respondents 2 and 3 Office Order No. 529m/91 was issued under Rule 116 of the RAW Rules giving them the date of confirmation as on 1st February, 1984. The position upto this date was thus as follows :- In respect of the petitioner an order was issued under Rule 114 of the Rules relating to the initial constitution of service whereas in respect of the respondents 2 and 3. Office Order was issued under Rule 116. As pointed out above Rule 114 deals with the initial constitution of service and also determines inter se seniority of such persons taken on initial constitution of service. Rule 116 relates to the appointment etc. and maintenance of the cadre as initial constitution. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 were working in RAW even as on 21st October, 1975 but Orders in respect of these respondents could not be passed under Rule 114 as they had not been confirmed in their parent department. Seniority list in the grade of personal Assistant was issued and circulated in november, 1997 as per which the name of the petitioner was at Serial no. 66 and whereas the respondents 2 and 3 were placed at serial no. 190 and 195 respectively. ( 7 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, parent department of the respondent no. 2 namely, All India Radio issued confirmation order on 17th December, 1993 confirming the respondent no. 2 as Stenographer Grade-II in his parent department w. e. f. 5th March, 1974. Likewise, order was issued by the Karnataka Police - the parent department of the respondent no. 3 confirming him as stenographer Grade-II w. e. f. 4th April, 1974. The effect of these Orders was that both the respondents 2 and 3 were treated as confirmed Stenographer Grade-II as on 5th March, 1974 and 4th April, 1974 i. e. before the constitution of the RAW as an independent department and that of GDMC in the said Department. 3 confirming him as stenographer Grade-II w. e. f. 4th April, 1974. The effect of these Orders was that both the respondents 2 and 3 were treated as confirmed Stenographer Grade-II as on 5th March, 1974 and 4th April, 1974 i. e. before the constitution of the RAW as an independent department and that of GDMC in the said Department. In these circumstances, they represented the Department for refixation of their seniority, which representation was accepted and the seniority of the respondents 2 and 3 were fixed at serial nos. 63a and 63b respectively by order dated 12th January, 1999. ( 8 ) THE petitioner represented vide letter dated 17th September, 1997 against the aforesaid seniority position accorded, to the respondents 2 and 3 which representation was turned down by Memo dated 10th december, 1997. The petitioner sent another representation dated 17th December, 1997. The respondents thereafter issued another seniority list of private Secretary dated 10th December, 1998 wherein the position of the petitioner as well as the respondents was shown as under : Respondent no. 2 - Serial no. 3. Respondent no. 3 - Serial no. 4 Petitioner - Serial no. 7. The petitioner s representation dated 17th December, 1997 was also turned down vide Memo dated 17th May, 1999. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED against this Order the petitioner filed Original Application no. 1953/99 seeking quashing/setting aside of Memo dated 17th May, 1999. This Original Application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned judgement dated 13th february, 2001 against which the present writ Petition is preferred by the petitioner. ( 10 ) THE short submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Rule 114 deals with the initial constitution of service and orders in respect of the petitioner were passed under this Rule. For whatever reason, the respondents 2 and 3 could not find place in this Order and thus by subsequent orders they could not be treated as taken at the time of initial constitution of the service. According to the learned counsel those appointed after the initial constitution of service had to be placed below those who were absorbed at its initial constitution. It was clear import of Rule 115. According to the learned counsel those appointed after the initial constitution of service had to be placed below those who were absorbed at its initial constitution. It was clear import of Rule 115. Therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 having missed the bus when order of initial constitution of service was passed as on 1st February, 1983 and the respondents 2 and 3 having been taken in service under Rule 116 w. e. f. 1st February, 1984, they had to rank junior to the petitioner. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the provision of Rule 114 in the cases of the respondents no. 2 and 3. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid argument, appears to be attractive in the first blush. However, that may be a position aply when, after the initial constitution, more persons are appointed afresh and join the service under Rule 116. It would not apply to egregious situation, as in the present case, where the respondents 2 and 3 were not appointed afresh for the first time w. e. f. 1st February, 1984. In fact they were already in service. Even at the tim of initial constitution of the service they were similarly situated as the petitioner and others in whose cases orders under Rule 114 were passed taking them in service as 1st February, 1983. The only reason that the respondents 2 and 3 were not included in that list was that the respective departments of the respondents 2 and 3 had not passed orders of their confirmation although they had become due for such confirmation as far back as in the year 1974. These orders were passed belatedly only in the year 1993 but from retrospective dates, namely, 5th March, 1974 and 4th April, 1974 respectively. The constitution of service took place afrer these dates, i. e. , on 21st October, 1975. As a sequatter the respondents 2 and 3 were confirmed stenographers Grade-II as on 21st October, 1975 and were working with RAW on deputation as on that date. Thus they were entitled to an Order under Rule 114 as on 1st February, 1983 which provides for initial constitution of service inasmuch as the respondents 2 and 3 were fulfilling all the conditions when the orders in respect of the petitioner and others were passed. Thus they were entitled to an Order under Rule 114 as on 1st February, 1983 which provides for initial constitution of service inasmuch as the respondents 2 and 3 were fulfilling all the conditions when the orders in respect of the petitioner and others were passed. Merely because there was a slip on the part of the parent Departments of the respondents 2 and 3 would not deprive them of their legitimate due. Once the parentDepartments of the respondents 2 and 3 passed such confirmation orders from retrospective effect for which the respondents 2 and 3 could neither be blamed nor made to suffer. In such circumstances as per sub-Rule 3 of Rule 115 it was possible to refix the seniority and undo the wrong in respect of the respondents 2 and 3. This is precisely what has been done by the official respondents. It may be noticed at this stage that this very argument of the petitioner was raised before the Tribunal also and the Tribunal negatived the same by observing as under; "that the applicant was appointed in the service on 1. 2. 1963 which is the date of initial constitution of the service, is not disputed. However what is disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant is that having missed the bus as on 1. 2. 1983 they (respondents) cannot claim seniority under sub-rule (3) of the same rule 115 which deals with initial constitution of service. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in accordance with sub rule (3) of Rule 115 reproduced above, it is possible to refix the seniority of others also who were not absorbed on the date of initial constitution of service by referring to the dates on which such others might have been confirmed in the department or service to which they might have belonged immediately before such absorption, we are inclined to accept this position. The maintenance phase related Rule will, according to us, apply to those only who are freshly recruited after the service has been initially constituted and will not apply to those who were already in service on the date of initial constitution of service and whose seniority etc. remained to be finally determined or else such seniority having been fixed is required to be reviewed in accordance with the relevant rules. remained to be finally determined or else such seniority having been fixed is required to be reviewed in accordance with the relevant rules. " ( 12 ) ACCORDING to us, the official respondents refixed the seniority which became due to the respondents 2 and 3 after the confirmation orders were passed in respect of them by their parent Department. By doing so, the respondents 2 and 3 are given the placement, in the seniority list of what was legitimately due to them. The learned Tribunal, according to us, in this view of the matter, had done substantial justice in the matter. We do not see any valid ground to interfere with the said decision as it is not a case where we should exercise our discretion while sitting in judicial review over the judgment of the learned Tribunal. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ Petition stands dismissed. ( 14 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs.