Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. On 13-5-2002, the Union of India sought an adjournment after the case had been argued by both the sides. The adjournment was taken so that Standing Counsel could advice the Department to look into the matter afresh. More than a year has passed and nothing concrete has been reported to the Court whether any matter was examined afresh. 2. The hearing, thus, must proceed. 3. The Court did not desire to record the history of the case or any aspect that the petitioner Saroj Kumari Singh a Head Clerk, Civil Engineering Department, Eastern Railway, Danapur may have been the victim of gender bias. The whole story begins, the Tribunal records it so, that she had made a complaint on two officers Messrs D.B. Mitra and K.S.C. Sharma regarding inaccurate bills submitted by these two officers claiming reimbursement. The petitioner apparently had sown the seeds for trouble when she complained against these officers. She was transferred several times and on more than one occasion had to file a petition before the Tribunal to receive the relief on being saved from a malicious transfer. This is on record. The order of transfer was quashed by the Tribunal. This was a case No. O.A. 344 of 1987. Thereafter, she was superseded. The Tribunal passed orders in case No. O.A. 140 of 1989. The order of the Tribunal is dated 18th September, 1990. Yet she was ignored for a promotion. She filed an application before the Tribunal. This was CCPA 1/91. 4. With this background the petitioner complained that she has lost seniority. There are two aspects where the Court feels that the Tribunal may have fallen in error in not providing relief. During the pendency of the petitioners application before the Tribunal CCPA 1/1991, an office order was issued by the railway administration. This is office order No. 204/1990-91. The petitioner was posted as a Head Clerk on an ad hoc basis from the date her junior had been promoted. This office order was silent on the point of seniority. Further, this office order did not declare her posting. The office order was vague and would only complicate the matter subsequently. 5. Later a departmental test was held for promotion to the post of Head Clerk. The test was scheduled for 5-11-1992. Perhaps, the petitioner had failed in that test. This office order was silent on the point of seniority. Further, this office order did not declare her posting. The office order was vague and would only complicate the matter subsequently. 5. Later a departmental test was held for promotion to the post of Head Clerk. The test was scheduled for 5-11-1992. Perhaps, the petitioner had failed in that test. But she had pointed out rightly that notwithstanding that she may not have succeeded in the test yet she could take the interview on the ground that the same departmental test was to be held six months subsequently. Should she succeed in the subsequent test, the results on the interview, for which she had not been called, could have been reckoned for the purposes of her promotion. The fact that the petitioner had not been called for an interview was another error which prevented her from picking up a promotion. 6. The totality of circumstances are she had seen hostility within the administration because she has reported senior officers on financial irregularities. If two situations had been taken care of what happened subsequently would not have taken place. Firstly, when the office order No. 204/90-91 was issued that order should have mentioned (a) her seniority and (b) the posting. Second, of the test in which she did not meet the grade or did not appear she should have been called for an interview, the test could be taken again within six months. 7. In the light of the observations made in this order, the Tribunal was clearly in error in not noticing these aspects. In the circumstances the respondents are obliged to reckon the seniority of the petitioner in terms of the office order of 204/1990-91 and assume that she was entitled to posting. Posting is an attribute of service. Not to give a posting is an abnormality. Thereafter if the petitioner has successfully passed the test subsequently, the respondents are obliged to interview her now. 8. Thus, the order of the Tribunal dated 23-9-1998 is quashed and the respondents are directed to reckon the seniority of the petitioner in terms referred to in this order.