R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in all these cases are seeking issuance of a direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioners in an Executive post known as Foreman E-II, from the date of petitioners' initial appointment and for payment of all consequential benefits including back wages. The petitioners seek for a direction for protection of the last drawn pay of the petitioners as a consequential order to the order of direction. ( 2 ) THE facts are same/similar in all these cases. ( 3 ) THE petitioners are the employees of M/s. Bharath Electronics limited (for short, 'bel' ). They were appointed as Engineering assistant-IX in terms of the appointment orders issued to each one of them. The petitioners state that the respondent issued a publication of an advertisement regarding the posts of Assistant Foremen (E-II) and assistant Works Manager (E-III), in its organisation. This advertisement was sent to the Commodore Bureau of Sailors (CABS), cheeta Camp, Mankhurd, Mumbai 400 088 through proper channel by the representative organisation. It is clearly mentioned in the letter about the post, qualification, professional experience in Navy and the candidates who are selected would be placed in any of the above mentioned posts. The respondent also gave the same advertisement in the newspaper in July 1998. The advertisement was given for non-executive and Executive posts. It is clearly mentioned that the executive posts 3 and 4 i. e. , Assistant Foreman (E-I) and Foremen (E-II) is to be accompanied by Crossed demand draft. The petitioners say that basing on the advertisement, they applied for the post of Executive category by paying Rs. 100/- draft. Basing on the application submitted by the petitioners, the respondent sent a letter informing the petitioners to attend written test and interview. In the letter, the respondent added one more category of Engineering Assistant-VIII. The petitioners attended written test and also appeared in the interview and they were successful in the matter. They were selected to the post of Engineering. Assistant-IX. It is non-Executive post. The petitioners state that the respondents are not counting the prior diploma experience of each one of the employees in the same field for 6 to 7 years. They have technical experience. The petitioners state that the appointment of the petitioners in non-executive posts result in degradation on the image of the petitioners. Assistant-IX. It is non-Executive post. The petitioners state that the respondents are not counting the prior diploma experience of each one of the employees in the same field for 6 to 7 years. They have technical experience. The petitioners state that the appointment of the petitioners in non-executive posts result in degradation on the image of the petitioners. ( 4 ) THE petitioners state that offers were made to the petitioners. The petitioners accepted the same and they were offered non-Executive posts called Engineering Assistant-IX. According to them, they have the necessary experience and qualification for the post of Foreman. The petitioners state that they applied only for the Executive post and they have been appointed to non-Executive post. Representation was made to the Ministry of Defence in terms of Annexure-E. The petitioners also produce the training undertaken by them in terms of Annexure-H. They sent several reminders to BEL in the matter, in response to the representations made by the petitioners, the respondents issued an endorsement in the matter. In the endorsement, it is stated that the last drawn salary is protected. The petitioners say that the placing of the petitioners in a non-Executive post is arbitrary and unsustainable. They also say that it results in injustice and frustration to the petitioners. The petitioners with these facts are before me. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance and they have filed a detailed objection statement. In the objection statement, it is mentioned that BEL is a Public Sector Undertaking coming under the Ministry of defence, Government of India, engaged in manufacturing of professional electronic equipments. The Company required certain experienced personnel for installation/testing/maintenance of various SONAR and other equipments and therefore notified to the Commodore Bureau of sailors, Mumbai. They requested to sponsor suitable candidates in the matter. It was indicated that the candidates selected would be placed in the grade based on their suitability, years of experience in the relevant field and qualification. Newspaper publication was also issued by the respondent. While offering the post to the Naval staff selected, rank and post-qualification, experience in the Navy was considered by the appointing Authority, compared with the induction level of existing employees in BEL BG CX. Newspaper publication was also issued by the respondent. While offering the post to the Naval staff selected, rank and post-qualification, experience in the Navy was considered by the appointing Authority, compared with the induction level of existing employees in BEL BG CX. Those who have completed Diploma prior to 1989, served in the grade of Master Chief Electrical Artificer and having 15 years post-qualification experience and more in the Navy were considered for E-I grade and those with less experience were considered for WG-IX/x. Accordingly, the entire recruitment was processed. The petitioners made applications against advertisements and were subjected to interview by the management. Thereafter, they were offered the post of Engineering Assistant-IX. They accepted the offer made by the management. The Company has uniformly maintained at all times that post-qualification experience apart from other criteria for placement in different grades. They further say that the representations were considered whereas it was found that the induction grade of the petitioners is in accordance with the existing norms of the Company. As far as the fixation of pay is concerned, the Company decided to protect the last pay drawn by the petitioners in Navy to the extent of basic pay and DA and the Company informed its decision to the petitioners. As a special case, it was decided that the petitioners would be eligible to appear for test to Executive cadre (E-I) on completion of 3 years in wg-IX and X, whereas in the case of regular employees with Diploma qualification the eligibility to take the Executive cadre promotion test is 7 years. Respondents further say that while offering the post to the Naval staff selected, rank and post-qualification experience in the Navy was considered by the Appointing Authority, compared with the induction level of existing employees in BEL BG CX Accordingly, those who have completed Diploma prior to 1989, served in the grade of Master Chief electrical Artificer and having 15 years post-qualification experience and more in Navy were considered for E-I grade and those in lower rank with less post-qualification, experience were considered for WG-IX/x. ( 6 ) HEARD Sri Jayakumar Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners along with M/s. Bangalore Law Associates. ( 7 ) HEARD Sri Viswanath, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned CGSC is directed to appear for central Government-respondents. ( 7 ) HEARD Sri Viswanath, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned CGSC is directed to appear for central Government-respondents. ( 8 ) SRI Jayakumar, learned Counsel invites my attention to the material facts to contend that there exists discrimination and that therefore, the matter requires consideration. He took me through the pleadings to contend that the petitioners did apply for Executive posts and they were considered for non-Executive posts. He refers to the pleadings and the documents to contend that the grant of non-Executive cadre is arbitrary and unsustainable. His further submission is that better experience and better training has not been properly appreciated by the respondent. He finds fault with the respondent. He wants a direction for this Court in terms of the pleadings and the material available on record. ( 9 ) PER contra, Sri Viswanath, learned Counsel invites my attention to the advertisement and also the offers made to them. He says that the company has taken note of the various circumstances including the induction level and the experience and thereafter they have been given the offer of non-Executive post. The same has been accepted. Counsel says that justice has to be made to them and he wants the petitions to be dismissed. ( 10 ) AFTER hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 11 ) ADMITTED facts would reveal of an advertisement with regard to the appointment for maintenance of SONAR in the respondent-Company. The Engineering Assistant Group IX, Junior foremen, Assistant Foremen and Foremen were the posts to be filled up by the respondent. Engineering Assistant Group IX and Junior Foremen were given the Grade of WG-IX and X. Assistant Foremen and Foremen were shown as Grade E-I and E-II. The petitioners say that E-I is an executive Grade. They say that they have sent a crossed demand draft, which is applicable only for Executive post. They therefore say that their cases ought to have been considered for E-I Executive Grade and the non-consideration for Executive Grade, according to them is legally unsustainable. ( 12 ) RESPONDENT as I mentioned earlier places a defence of acceptance of the offer. It is no doubt true that the application for the post at SI. Nos. 3 and 4 (E-I and E-II) is to be accommodated by cross demand of rs. 100/- in terms of the advertisement. ( 12 ) RESPONDENT as I mentioned earlier places a defence of acceptance of the offer. It is no doubt true that the application for the post at SI. Nos. 3 and 4 (E-I and E-II) is to be accommodated by cross demand of rs. 100/- in terms of the advertisement. The advertisement also shows a column reading as under:"qualification and Experience. Ex-Navy personnel with a diploma and 10 or more years post-qualification professional experience in the grade of Artificer, Master Chief Electrical artificer (Class I/ii) in the Navy with experience in the areas mentioned above will be placed in the appropriate grade based on the last pay drawn post-qualification experience, etc. ". A reading of the said qualification would show that those who have an experience of 10 or more years post-qualification professional experience in the grade of Artificer, Master Chief Electrical Artificer (Class MI) in the Navy with experience in the areas mentioned above will be placed in the appropriate grade based on the last pay drawn post-qualification experience, etc. ". ( 13 ) IT is also seen from the material on record that each one of the petitioners were issued with an offer and in the offer, it is categorically stated that an offer of appointment for the post of Executive assistant-IX was issued to them. It is also seen that a detailed letter has been issued with regard to an offer of appointment for the post of executive Assistant-II by the Company. Clause XXI would show that if the above terms are acceptable to the petitioners, then they are required to report with acceptance letter and pre-employment medical certificate. ( 14 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that each one of the petitioners have accepted the terms and conditions in writing before joining duty. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners knowing fully well the terms and conditions have chosen to accept the same for the reasons best known to them. Having accepted the terms, it is not open to the petitioners now to contend that notwithstanding this acceptance, they should be placed at E-I in these cases. This request of the petitioners cannot be accepted in the light of acceptance of the offer by the petitioners. ( 15 ) THE respondents have justified their placing the petitioners in weg, W9 and 10 in the objection statement. This request of the petitioners cannot be accepted in the light of acceptance of the offer by the petitioners. ( 15 ) THE respondents have justified their placing the petitioners in weg, W9 and 10 in the objection statement. The respondent is a public sector Company and it has to have its own induction level for appointment in the Company. They have stated in several places in the objection statement that the Company has considered the rank, qualification post and qualification experience. The Committee has selected the following criteria in terms of the averments made in para 6: for the post of 'assistant Foreman E-I'. Master Chief electrical Aritificer with minimum 15 years post-qualification experience. For the post of 'junior Foreman WOX'. Chief Electrical artificer with minimum 12 years post-qualification experience. For the post of 'engineering Assistant-WG-IX'. Chief mechanician/mechanician with minimum 10 years post-qualification experience. The petitioners in the case on hand were placed in Engineering assistants-IX in the light of their having only 9 years of experience in these cases. This criteria followed/by the Company cannot said to be arbitrary and unsustainable. It is also to be seen from the averments that the petitioners have chosen to place only those who have 15 years of experience in E-I grade. Those with lower rank/less qualification were considered for WG-IX and X. This consideration in my view is just and proper. Moreover, the Company also as a special case has chosen to provide eligibility to appear for its Executive cadre on completion of three years in WG-EX and X as against 7 years in the case of regular employees. Probably this has been done taking into consideration their experience in the Navy. A totality of circumstances in terms of the averments made in the objection statement would show that justice has been done to the petitioners. The petitioners have also accepted the offer in this regard. Their pay is fully protected by the respondent. The company also protected the last pay drawn by the petitioners to the extent of basic pay and DA. Taking into consideration, an overall view of the matter, I think that the Company is fully justified in providing non-Executive offer to the petitioners in the given circumstances. Therefore, I am unable to accept the argument of the petitioners. ( 16 ) THE argument of the petitioners that they have sent Rs. Taking into consideration, an overall view of the matter, I think that the Company is fully justified in providing non-Executive offer to the petitioners in the given circumstances. Therefore, I am unable to accept the argument of the petitioners. ( 16 ) THE argument of the petitioners that they have sent Rs. 100/- and that therefore they ought to have been provided an Executive post does not appeal to me particularly, in the light of acceptance of the offer by the petitioners. Looking from any angle, no case is made out by the petitioners. ( 17 ) NO grounds. Petitions stand rejected. Parties are to bear their costs. ( 18 ) SRI Dinesh Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks. --- *** --- .