( 1 ) RESEARCH and Analysis Service (RAS) is a group-A service in the cabinet Secretariat. Respondent Raghav Prasad Bhatnagar cleared Civil Services examination 1991. He was appointed as Assistant Commandant in C. I. S. F. group-A on 12. 10. 1992. All the probationers were given an option to join RAS. It was made clear that if the aspirants were already employed in government service they would be required to resign from those posts and the previous service rendered by them would not be counted for the purposes of seniority. The applicant opted for RAS on 1st September 1993. He moved a representation on 3. 9. 2003 with the prayer that his seniority should be counted from the date of 12. 10. 1992 when he had joined the government service. He also averred that similarly placed persons J. K. Ojha and others have been granted the benefit of previous service by the Tribunal. His representation was rejected for the reasons mentioned above and due to the reason that the respondent did not join ras from an organized service and as such he was not not entitled to the benefit of past service. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent approached Central administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 18th August 2005 allowed the petition and quashed the order rejecting respondents representation. It was directed that the respondent will get the benefit of his past service rendered in C. I. S. F. Aggrieved by that order the present writ petition has been filed by UOI with the prayer that the judgment passed by the Tribunal dated 18. 8. 2005 be quashed. ( 2 ) WE passed the following order on 30. 05. 2006:-"mr. A. K. Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on an advance copy of the petition, points out that one Shri J. K. Ojha, who had agitated similar grievances with regard to his service in IRTS not being counted, before the Tribunal, had been granted relief. The Tribunal in its orders dated 18th August, 2005 had noticed about the said case in para 9. Mr. Tandon points out that while Union of India has given the benefit to Mr. J. K. Ojha but the petitioner-UOI seeks to deny the same benefit to the respondent in this case. The Tribunal in its orders dated 18th August, 2005 had noticed about the said case in para 9. Mr. Tandon points out that while Union of India has given the benefit to Mr. J. K. Ojha but the petitioner-UOI seeks to deny the same benefit to the respondent in this case. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to obtain instructions with regard to the prosecution of the writ petition and whether the petitioner-UOI are willing to withdraw the same benefits from Shri J. K. Ojha and others who have been given similar benefits. " ( 3 ) TODAY the learned counsel for the petitioner states that they are not willing to withdraw the benefits already accorded to Sh. J. K. Ojha. He further submits that the terms of appointment specifically provided that credit for previous government service in another organization is not to be taken. He pointed out that giving the respondent the credit for service in C. I. S. F. was contrary to the terms of the appointment letter. He has also relied upon case of Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor Delhi and Ors. 2001 SCC 644 , wherein it was held:-"it is therefore reasonable to expect that when a deputationist is absorbed in a department, he would certainly have expected that his seniority in the parent department would be counted. If at all the conditions stipulated in the OM were to be made applicable to such persons, it was the duty of the respondents to have made known the conditions of the OM to the deputationists before absorbing them, so that such a deputationist would have had the option of accepting or refusing permanent absorption in Delhi Police. The very fact that such steps were not taken, shows that the OM was in fact never acted upon. "he lastly pleaded that Rule 21 could apply at the time of initial constitution of the service but not subsequently. He explained that now the applicable rule was Rule 26. He relied upon Rule 26 (2), which was not produced along with the writ petition but was sought to be referred to by the learned counsel during arguments. When he was asked to produce the said rule, he contended that the same was confidential and could not be made available to respondent. He relied upon Rule 26 (2), which was not produced along with the writ petition but was sought to be referred to by the learned counsel during arguments. When he was asked to produce the said rule, he contended that the same was confidential and could not be made available to respondent. In case reliance is sought to be placed upon a service rule to deny a benefit to an employee, the latter is entitled to see the same and it is not open to petitioners to deny the same on the so called notion of confidentiality. ( 4 ) ALL these arguments have not impressed us. The short answer to petitioners submission is that in terms of Rule 21 which was applicable from the initial constitution of the service, i. e. of R and WRCS Rules, where recruitment is made through competitive examination, the year of allotment in R and W service shall be the year of allotment in the service to which the person belonged immediately before absorption in the Research and Analysis Service. Accordingly, the year of allotment in the present case has to be from the year in which the respondent had joined the CISF. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant rules as hereunder:-"rule 23. (1) the inter se seniority of the members of the Service in each grade shall be determined by fixing a year of allotment for each of them. (2) the year of allotment will be determined as follows: (b) In the case of officers belonging to other All India Services and Central services Class I recruitment, to which is made through competitive examination, their year of allotment in the Research and Analysis Service shall be the year of their allotment in the service to which they belonged immediately before their absorption in the Research and Analysis Service, or if there is no year of allotment, the year in which the officer joined the Class I Service. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (e) The year of allotment of officers who have alrady been recruited to the junior scale at the time of the initial consitution of the Service will be the year in which they were so recruited. Their inter se seniority will be as determined by the Selection Board at the time of their recruitment. " ( 5 ) IN J. K. Ojha Vs. Union of India and Anr. Their inter se seniority will be as determined by the Selection Board at the time of their recruitment. " ( 5 ) IN J. K. Ojha Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported at All India services Law Journal 2002 (3) SLJ (CAT) page 1 the Tribunal had accepted the plea for counting of past service applying the above rule. The Tribunal had mentioned three or four reasons while accepting the contention. The Tribunal displayed its surprise as to why he was not given the benefit of past service. The Tribunal held that Union of India could not show in any acceptable manner that RAS was a superior service, providing better facilities, greater responsibilities or prestige in comparison to All India Services or other central Services Group a so as to persuade officers from those services to sacrifice or forfeit the benefits in their own service to join RAS. Moreover, these are not cases where the movements are from lower level posts to higher level posts facilitated by technical resignations enabling the concerned individuals to have the benefits of the past services only for the purpose of pension but are movements from three Group a services to RAS, all of which are on the same grades and carry the same scales of pay. The Tribunal also pointed out that obviously these applicants have acquired a vested rights in their earlier services ? IRTS- ICCES and IA and AS ? and those rights which are based on equality before law and equal opportunity for employment granted respectively under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, cannot be considered to have been bartered away by the applicants by their acceptance of the offer in the above appointment letters. All averments to the contrary, are fallacious and would have to be rejected out right. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal also had an occasion to examine and discuss Rule 26 in the abovesaid judgment. The relevant portion runs as follows:-"we also observe that the Rules have been further amended by Notification no. A-12018/3/97-DO-I-332 dated 9-7-1997, by permitting induction of ?those who have successfully competed in the Civil Service Examination and have rendered not less than two years of service in any All India / Central Service Group a in the junior scale of RAS?. This has been done by inserting Clause (d) in Rule 26 (2 ). A-12018/3/97-DO-I-332 dated 9-7-1997, by permitting induction of ?those who have successfully competed in the Civil Service Examination and have rendered not less than two years of service in any All India / Central Service Group a in the junior scale of RAS?. This has been done by inserting Clause (d) in Rule 26 (2 ). The amended Rule goes on to direct in Sub-rule (6) that ?the seniority of the probationers who have been selected from All India/central Services shall be according to their year of allotment in their original service and the inter se seniority of the candidates of the same year of allotment shall be as per the position in the combined merit list of the relevant Civil Service Examination?. Therefore, recruits to RAS from other Group a services, joining on the basis of 1997 amendment would also get the benefit of their original service, for computing the service in RAS. This leaves behind the likes of applicants as odd persons out in the entire scheme of things. This can only be described as invidious and hostile discrimination as has been noted by the DOPT also. Respondents only explanation is that at the time when the applicant joined RAS from other services, there was no alternative to loss of previous service, which was a policy directive, totally unassailable in terms of the Hon ble Apex court s decision in UOI v. S. L. Dutta and Anr. (supra ). The fact, however, is that the benefit of inclusion of past service was available to all the entrants in RAS before the applicants joined it and it was made available to all most all those who joined it subsequently leaving the applicants among the handful who have been denied the same without any rationale. Respondents seek to perpetuate this illegal act, holding it out to be an inviolable policy prescription, which has to be accepted by the applicants for all time to come, as they apparently feel that they have totally unfettered authority to deal with their employees, the way they elect to do without any accountability. Removal, of this discrimination was not an insurmountable problem as the Rule 161 of the Rules, given below itself provides for dealing with such situations:- where the Govt. Removal, of this discrimination was not an insurmountable problem as the Rule 161 of the Rules, given below itself provides for dealing with such situations:- where the Govt. is of the opinion, that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect of any class or category of persons. " fairness and transparency in administration demanded that the respondents should have taken corrective action treating the applicants as a special class, which they were. They have, however, chosen not to act and thereby permitted the discrimination to be continued. This is illegal and has to be set aside in the interest of justice. We are in agreement with the abovesaid observations. " ( 7 ) THE law laid down in Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Anr. (Supra) does not create propitious conditions for the petitioner. An individual or a group of individuals cannot be pinned down to the terms and conditions laid down in their case individually. The law has to apply in respect of all and sundry. The pick and choose policy on the part of the petitioner is unfathomable. ( 8 ) WE are not persuaded to interfere in this case in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed. .