JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Govind Saran for the respondents. 2. The challenge is to the order dated 23.2.2010 whereby the petitioners have been placed as constables of Railway Protection Force fixing their placement in terms of the request made by the petitioners which the respondents allege is an undertaking. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid placement is contrary to rules and a supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein learned counsel for the petitioner has raised four submissions quoted herein below : 4 (e) That aforesaid position are invited some question for most consideration that firstly, whether Railway Board’s directive or Govt. instructions can superseded the statutory rules, secondly the petitioners upon his transfer from RPSF at his own request to the RPF, are entitled to be placed in the seniority list on the bottom of existed. Confirmed and officiating staff, in the relevant grade of this railway on which day they are joining or they shall be placed in the seniority list of Constable post, thirdly, whether the seniority shall be fixed accordance with rules or on the undertaking, given in lacks of knowledge of this position (facts) misinterpreted by the concern respondent and lastly, whether any undertaking can wiped the seniority of earlier department, accepted in the contrary of law and directives. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further produced a copy of the said request which has been made by the other similarly situate employees and the petitioners have also made identical request in the printed proforma. The said printed proforma in the case of Satish Kumar Yadav is quoted herein below: To, The Director General, Railway Protection Force, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. (Through proper channel) Sub : Request for transfer from No. 2 Bn/RPSF to RPF Ref : Railway Boards L/No. 2007/Sec (ABE)/TR-6/32 New Delhi, Dated 24.7.2007. Respected Sir, It is requested that the undersigned may kindly be transferred to RPF of any of the following two Zonal railways. Two Options in order of priority are: (I) N.E. Railway (II) E.C. Railway Above request is made in view of my personal problems. My Bio-Data is as under : 1. Name Satish Kumar Yadav 2. Father’s Name Shri Shri Ram Yadav 3. Personal Number 2936 4. Rank Head Constable 5. Battalion 28N RPSF R-Camp Gorakhpur 6. Date of Birth 1.7.1972 7. My Bio-Data is as under : 1. Name Satish Kumar Yadav 2. Father’s Name Shri Shri Ram Yadav 3. Personal Number 2936 4. Rank Head Constable 5. Battalion 28N RPSF R-Camp Gorakhpur 6. Date of Birth 1.7.1972 7. Date of Enlistment 2.11.1995 8. Date of Appointment 27.9.1996 9. Date of Promotion 12.2.2007 10. Whether facing any punishment/DAR/ Vigilance cases No I am aware that I shall be placed in the seniority list of the Zonal Railways at the bottom of the batch which had joined the railway in the year of my enlistment. I am also aware that such placement in the seniority list may lead to my reversion in the rank also. Yours faithfully Place : Gorakhpur Satish Kumar Yadav Date : 30.7.2007 (HC/ 2BN RPSF Gkp) Note.—The applicant should writ ‘Yes’ or ‘N0’ in the Box at Sl. No. 10 above. Markings ‘Tick’ or ‘X’ shall not be accepted. CERTIFICATE certified that information furnished at Sl. Nos. 1 to 10 is correct as per the office records. Sr. CO/CO/ Adjutant/AC Name: P. Natarajan Seal: Asstt. Commandant No. 2 BN/RPSF R-Camp, Gkp 5. The contention raised on the strength of the aforesaid documents and averments it is urged that the said letter only acknowledges the awareness of the consequences and is not acceptance of the consequences arising out of the said letter. Learned counsel submits that they are not claiming seniority but the manner in which the reversion is sought to be imposed on the petitioners is founded on an misinterpretation of the relevant rules. 6. Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is against record and founded on an erroneous interpretation of their own undertaking and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that the order itself records that it is subject to the outcome of the writ petition Nos. 53803/2008 and 57659/2008. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the request which has been made and quoted herein above recites that the applicant is aware of that he “shall be” be placed in the seniority list of the Zonal Railways at the bottom. 53803/2008 and 57659/2008. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the request which has been made and quoted herein above recites that the applicant is aware of that he “shall be” be placed in the seniority list of the Zonal Railways at the bottom. This recital is complete in all respects and, either taken grammatically or figuratively, the same clearly indicates that the candidate filling up the said form and making the said request has undertaken to accept the terms of the said seniority as imposed therein. In view of this, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has only acknowledged awareness is absolutely incorrect. 8. The second part of the declaration is that the applicant is also aware that such placement of the aforesaid seniority may bring about a reversion as well. There is no averment on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of having the awareness or acknowledgement of such consequences they had objected to the same. Once having opted for the same on a request given by the petitioners themselves, the arguments which have been indicated in Clause (e) herein above cannot be entertained by this Court. Awareness means that the petitioners were sensibly informed and were not ignorant about what was in store for them. The option given is a voluntary exercise which does not reflect any lack of understanding nor the effect of it is wiped out on account of the consequences. Learned counsel has been unable to establish any violation of rules so as to warrant interference. 9. Apart from this the petitioners’ rights are yet to be adjudicated upon the out come of the writ petitions which have been referred to in the impugned order. In such a situation none of the prayers hold water. 10. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————