Judgment : The above writ petition has been filed by Shunters and Goods Driver in the Southern Railway, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is O.A. No. 880 of 2003, dated 110. 2004. 2. The application approached the Tribunal to set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein dated 20.2.2003, by which the 2nd respondent sustained the provisional seniority list dated 110. 2000 insofar as refusing to revise the seniority of the applicants in the order of Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) ranking/merit list dated 12. 1997 and direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the applicants as per the order of the seniority in RRB list dated 12. 1997 and to promote the applicants as Shunters and Goods Drivers on par with their immediate juniors in the RRB seniority list with all arrears and consequential benefits. 3. The case of the applicants is that they were recruited through RRB for the post of Diesel Assistant/Assistant Drivers in the 4 year 1997 and the RRB issued a merit list containing the numbers of 220 candidates based on the examination conducted by them. The applicants were thereafter directed to appear for medical examination and 170 candidates, who were found medically fit, were appointed by Proceeding dated 27. 1997. Such of those candidates were required to undergo training for a period of 50 weeks and the offer of appointment was subject to successful completion of training and passing final examination, both oral and written. The applicants were sent for training in Zonal Electrical Traction Training Centre at Avadi on 6. 1997 and they were divided into six groups for the purpose of imparting training and the training period was reduced from 50 weeks to 32 weeks. 4. On completion of training, the applicants were given posting as Assistant Driver and orders of absorption to 170 candidates were issued, who had successfully completed the training, which includes the applicants also. The order dated 7. 1998, specifically stated that the seniority position of the employees will be advertised later. On 110. 2000, the respondents issued a provisional seniority list containing the names of 525 persons including the candidates belonging to the earlier batch and the subsequent batches. The applicants batch, of the year 1997, are from Sl. Nos. 99 to 263. 5. 1998, specifically stated that the seniority position of the employees will be advertised later. On 110. 2000, the respondents issued a provisional seniority list containing the names of 525 persons including the candidates belonging to the earlier batch and the subsequent batches. The applicants batch, of the year 1997, are from Sl. Nos. 99 to 263. 5. The grievance of the applicants is that the provisional seniority list was not prepared in accordance with Rule 303(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, which contemplates that the ranking shall be based on a final examination to be conducted at the close of the training and that the seniority list ought to have been prepared before issuing posting orders. The applicants would further submit that the final examination was not conducted and they were not informed that the marks obtained in all the tests during the period of training would be the basis for fixation of their seniority. The applicants would also rely upon the observation made by the Tribunal in an earlier Original Application filed by them in O.A. Nos. 1014 of 2001 and 1015 of 2001, where a direction was issued by the Tribunal to consider the representation of the applicants, further observing that there has been infraction of Rule 303(a). On the above grounds, the applicants had approached the Tribunal with the aforesaid relief. 6. The Railway Administration filed a detailed Reply Statement, inter alia denying the allegations contained in the Original Application. The Railway Administration would accept that the final examination was not conducted, but, however, they would state that the employees were divided into 4 batches for training on rotational basis in different modules and each batch, on completion of the particular module, was subjected to examination. The candidates were tested at every stage and average marks at the end of the training was published on 2. 2000. The respondents would further submit that the applicants were clearly informed at the time of absorption by the order dated 7. 1998, that the seniority position would be published later. The Administration would further state just manner at the end of each module and no batch was given any preference over the other and the reduction of the training period to 32 weeks was the police decision of the Railway Administration. 7. 1998, that the seniority position would be published later. The Administration would further state just manner at the end of each module and no batch was given any preference over the other and the reduction of the training period to 32 weeks was the police decision of the Railway Administration. 7. The Tribunal after considering the matter, held that the method adopted by the Administration, though is not strictly in accordance with the Rule is not strictly in accordance with the Rule 303(a), the procedure adopted by the Administration is substantive compliance with spirit of the instruction in Rule 303(a) therefore, there is no error in the procedure adopted by the Administration. The Tribunal further held that no purpose would be served by directing the respondents to conduct another final examination at this distance point of time as it would be only causing more hardships to the applicants. Based on the such observations, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. 8. The applicants being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, had filed the above Writ Petition, primarily on the ground that the failure to adopt the procedure contemplated under Rule 303(a) is illegal and the respondents cannot deviate from the procedure stipulated and the reasoning of the Tribunal that there is substantial compliance of the Rule is contrary to the very basic Rule of Service Jurisprudence. The applicants would further submit that in the absence of a final examination at the end of the training period, the interse seniority ought to have been fixed only based on the RRB merit/ranking, as could be seen from the absorption list dated 7. 1998. The applicants would further submit it that such practice was adopted for earlier selections between 1993 and 1996 as well as in respect of the workmen of Palakkad Division, who were also absorbed during 1998-1999 as that of the applicants. 9. The respondents would reiterate the contentions raised in the Reply Statement and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also place reliance upon the proceedings of the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, dated 11. 9. The respondents would reiterate the contentions raised in the Reply Statement and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also place reliance upon the proceedings of the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, dated 11. 2003, which states that the mark list published earlier during June 2000 is based on the average marks of all examinations conducted during the course of training including the final examination and GRS Marks, which is not in accordance with the provisions of Indian Railway Establishment Manual. By placing reliance on the said proceedings, the learned counsel would contend that the Railway Administration is fully aware that the procedure adopted by them is not in accordance with the Rules. 11. We heard Mr. V. Ajoy Khose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Lita Srinivasan, learned Standing counsel for Railways appearing for the respondents and carefully considered the materials placed on record. 12. Before proceeding to consider the claims of both the parties, it is useful to refer Rule 303(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, which reads as follows: Chapter III: Rules regarding seniority of non-gazetted Railway Servants. The existing Para 303(a) may be amended as follows: “Candidates who are sent for initial training to Training Schools will rank in serniority in the relevant grade in the order of merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted against working post. Those who join the subsequent courses and those who pass the examination in subsequent chances will rank junior to those who had passed the examination. In case, however, persons belonging to the same RRB panel are sent for initial training in batches due to administrative reasons and not because of reasons attributable to the candidates, the inter-se seniority will be regulated batchwise provided persons higher up in the panel of the RRB not sent for training in the appropriate batch (as per seniority) due to administrative reasons shall be clubbed along with the candidates who took the training in the appropriate batch for the purpose of regulating the inter se seniority provided such persons pass the examination at th& end of the training in the first attempt.” (Authority: Railway Board’s letter No. E/(NG)1/89/SR6/32(PNM) dated 13. 1993). It is not in dispute that the above provision applies to the present selection. 1993). It is not in dispute that the above provision applies to the present selection. The Rule contemplates that the candidates who were sent for initial training to Training School will rank in seniority in the relevant grade in the order to merit obtained by him in the examination held at the end of the training period. The Rule further states that the determination of the seniority would be before being posted against working post. 13. Admittedly, the process of recruitment was initiated based on the above Rule. It is also admitted by the respondents that the selected candidates were sent for training in different modules by dividing them into 4 groups. It is further stated that at the end of each training in different modules by dividing them into 4 groups. It is further stated that at the end of each training in a particular module, a test was conducted and the provisional seniority list dated 110. 2000 was prepared based upon the marks obtained in such tests conducted at the end of each training session. The respondents would, therefore, contend that the procedure adopted by them is fair and reasonable and calls for no interference. 14. It is true that in the absence of a Rule or Registration, the Administration would be justified in adopting a reasonable and fair procedure in the matter of section or seniority. However, in the case on hand, a specific rule has been framed, which contemplates the procedure to be followed for the purpose of fixing the seniority among the selected candidates. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the respondent Administration to strictly follow the procedure under the Rules without any deviation. Admittedly, the selected candidates were not informed that their seniority would be based on the marks obtained in the tests conducted at the end of each training session. Therefore, it is clear that the Rule has been violated. Besides, no proper reason has been assigned on the part of the Administration for deviating from the procedure contemplated under Rule 303(a). 15. Next, it is to be seen that as to whether the procedure adopted by the administration could be justified on the ground of substantial compliance of the Rule, as held by the Tribunal. We are unable to subscribe to such a proposition erroneously arrived at by the Tribunal. 15. Next, it is to be seen that as to whether the procedure adopted by the administration could be justified on the ground of substantial compliance of the Rule, as held by the Tribunal. We are unable to subscribe to such a proposition erroneously arrived at by the Tribunal. The Rule contemplates a procedure and it is settled legal principle that when a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in such a manner alone. Practical difficulties expressed by the Administration in implementing the Rule would not justify their conduct in violating the Rule. If there are any difficulties in implementing the Rule, the Administration should have taken steps through proper method to amend or modify the Rule. It has not been done. 16. It is also relevant to note that the candidates have not been informed that the basis for fixing their seniority would be on the basis of the test conducted at the end of each training session and although, they have been left in lurch and suddenly the change that too in clear violation of Rule 303(a), has been pressed into service. Therefore, the Railway Administration cannot adopt a new procedure for the purpose of determining seniority as it would amount to changing the procedure for determination of seniority after the selection process is complete and training session had begun. Amendment of procedure midstream has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of selection, vide Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University (2009) 4 SCC 555 and this proposition could also be very well imparted into the facts of the present case. 17. The Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.V. Pardasani and others v. Union of India and Other AIR 1985 SC 781 : (1985) 2 SCC 468 , and held that the mathematical precision cannot be expected in the matters relating to the seniority and promotion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case was dealing with an Application under Article 32 of Constitution of India, where the petitioners, who belonged to the cadre of the Section Officer in Central Secretariat Service have challenged the combined seniority list of all Section Officers belonging to the service and for a direction to recast the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case was dealing with an Application under Article 32 of Constitution of India, where the petitioners, who belonged to the cadre of the Section Officer in Central Secretariat Service have challenged the combined seniority list of all Section Officers belonging to the service and for a direction to recast the same. After examining the entire facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, taking note the submissions made on behalf of the Union of India that in the process of direct recruitment, there has been considerable delay and though competitive examination is held in one particular year and by the time of selected officers join the post, more than one year is lost, observed that mathematical precision cannot be accepted in matters of such nature. In the very same Judgment in paragraph No. 6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the “legal position is equally settled that if a Rule prescribes a method of fixation of inter se seniority, the normal practice would not apply and the Rule shall prevail”. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the mathematical precision cannot be applied to the such matter. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had clearly held that the rule shall prevail over the normal practice. 18. The facts of the present case is not as complicated as it is projected by the respondent Administration. Admittedly, the respondents Administration was aware of the procedure to be followed in terms of the Rule and accordingly the candidates were sent for training and there is no justification whatsoever for not holding the final examination. Therefore, we hold that the procedure adopted by the Railway Administration is contrary to Rule 303(a) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the same is illegal. Having held so, it has to be decided as to the nature of be relief to be granted to the applicants at this stage. 19. In the Additional Typed set of Papers filed by the petitioners, at Page No. 27, the office order dated 21. 1999 relating to absorption of Diesel Assistance in the Palghat Division has been enclosed. The candidates, therein, have been arrayed based on their number assigned by the RRB merit list. 19. In the Additional Typed set of Papers filed by the petitioners, at Page No. 27, the office order dated 21. 1999 relating to absorption of Diesel Assistance in the Palghat Division has been enclosed. The candidates, therein, have been arrayed based on their number assigned by the RRB merit list. It is further submitted that in respect of Palghat Division also the final examination was not conducted and therefore, the Divisional Office of the Palghat Division, while issuing a seniority list on 17. 2006, followed the RRB merit list and candidates so selected were placed in accordance with the said ranking. This could be seen from Page No. 39 of the Additional Typedset of Papers from Serial Nos. 422 to 489. Therefore, we are of the view that the same procedure shall be adopted in the instant case also and the respondents are directed to revise the seniority of the Applications as per the Orderin the RRB list dated 12. 1997 and grant other consequential reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners. 20. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction, setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The Railway Administration is directed to complete the revision of seniority of the Applicants within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.