Amitava Roy, J;— In assailment is the judgment and order dated 04.04.2008, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (for short hereafter referred to as the Tribunal), rejecting the applicant/writ petitioner’s challenge to the selection process initiated by the advertisement dated 15.12.2005 for filling up the DP Quota for JE/II in the Mechanical Wing under CWM/NFR/NBQS by selection against 25% segment, as contemplated under Rule 141 (ii) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (for short hereafter also referred to as the Code). 2. We have heard Mr. BR Dey, Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner and Mr. UK Nair assisted by Mr. Chetri, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway for the respondents. 3. An abridged version of the pleaded facts would project the factual background. The writ petitioner at the relevant point of time was Apprentice Mechanic detailed under the Workshop (M&P), Guwahati at New Bongaigaon Railway Workshop. On 15.12.2005 an advertisement was published for filling up the following vacancies against the aforementioned quota under Rule 141 of the Code by a selection process from the Intermediate Apprentice (also designated as Apprentice Mechanics): - Workshop cadre comprising of Carriage & of Carriage & Other Trades except machine & Millwright Trades UR = 06, SC = 01 & ST = 01 = 08 Workshop (M&P) Cadre-Comprising of Machine & Millwright Trades. Total UR = 03, SC = Nil & ST = Nil = 03 UR 09, SC 01 & ST 01 11. 4. The academic qualifications and other conditions of eligibility were laid down therein. This exercise, as a matter of fact, was one to enable the Intermediate Apprentices possessed of pre revised qualifications to partake therein. Incidentally, meanwhile, the earlier academic qualification of matriculation or equivalent thereto had been raised to 10 + 2 in the Science stream. As would be apparent from the above extract, 8 and 3 vacancies respectively, in the Workshop Cadre comprising of Carriage & Other Trades except Machine & Millwright Trades and Workshop (M&P) Cadre respectively had been contemplated, totaling 11. The writ petitioner, accordingly, took the written test, which was held on 26.08.2006 and in the results declared thereafter, he was shown to be unsuccessful. By an office memorandum dated 09.10.2006, on the basis of the performance in the written examination, 8 candidates were selected for appointment to the post of JE/II in the scale of Rs.5000- 8000/-. The writ petitioner, accordingly, took the written test, which was held on 26.08.2006 and in the results declared thereafter, he was shown to be unsuccessful. By an office memorandum dated 09.10.2006, on the basis of the performance in the written examination, 8 candidates were selected for appointment to the post of JE/II in the scale of Rs.5000- 8000/-. The list included two candidates, namely, Sri Pradip Dey and Sri Gautam Dastidar, who, though, belonged to the Workshop Cadre were accommodated against two vacancies with the Workshop (M&P) Cadre. The writ petitioner perceiving that the selection of the above two candidates against the vacancies earmarked for M&P Cadre Workshop was impermissible in law and that the selection process had been deliberately tilted towards the candidates of the Workshop Cadre, approached the learned Tribunal at the first instance with OA No.59/2007, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of his representation ventilating identical grievances. The representation having been rejected, the applicant/writ petitioner again approached the Tribunal with OA No.196/2007, which, by the impugned judgment and order, has been dismissed, negating the assailments. 5. The respondents/Railways in their written statement before the learned Tribunal, in substance, had pleaded that though, while disclosing the vacancies, those were projected vis-a-vis Workshop Cadre and Workshop (M&P) Cadre, these, in fact, belong to the Mechanical Department under the Railways and it had never been intended to compartmentalize the same for the purpose of selection and accommodation of the candidates cadre wise. According to the respondents/Railways, a common written test was held for all the candidates, who were construed to be a homogeneous class and after the selection, allotments were made against the vacancies depending on administrative exigencies. Moreover, the applicant/writ petitioner having failed in the common written test, he has no locus standi, either to impugn the selection process or the allotment of vacancies to the successful candidates. 6. Whereas, Mr. Dey, has insisted that having regard to the unambiguous disclosures in the advertisement and the clearly intended bifurcation of the posts cadre wise, no appointment of any candidate of Workshop Cadre against any vacancy in the Workshop (M&P) Cadre was allowable in law, Mr. Nair, has abided by the pleaded stand of the N.F. Railways as summarized hereinabove. In order to substantiate the challenge laid by the writ petitioner, Mr. Nair, has abided by the pleaded stand of the N.F. Railways as summarized hereinabove. In order to substantiate the challenge laid by the writ petitioner, Mr. Dey has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in R.S. JAYAKUMAR & ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS., IX (2007) SLT 614. 7. We have extended our thoughtful consideration to the rival pleadings and the arguments advanced. That the selection process had been conducted in terms of Rule 141 of the Code is an admitted fact. The writ petitioner as well as the candidates selected and appointed vide office memorandum dated 09.10.2006 were eligible in terms of the prescriptions of this provision of the Code. That the writ petitioner in the written test held commonly for all the candidates had been unsuccessful is also not disputed. 8. The above quoted extract from the advertisement makes it obvious that while disclosing the vacancies, the concerned authorities had indicated those cadre wise. To reiterate, 8 vacancies were in the Workshop Cadre and 3 for the Workshop (M&P) Cadre. There is no wrangle at the Bar that a common written test was held for all the candidates vying for these posts. No other provision, except Rule 141 of the Code, has been brought to our notice to demonstrate any distinguishing feature either in the conditions of eligibility or the measure of assessment of the candidates for the purpose of their selection against the vacancies cadre wise. The plea advanced on behalf of the respondent/Railways that the Apprentice Mechanics also designated as Intermediate Apprentice Mechanics in the feeder cadre for promotion/selection to the post of JE/II constitute a homogeneous category has remained unrefuted by the writ petitioners. More importantly, the writ applicant/petitioner has failed in the written test. Though, a representation about 6 weeks after the written test had been submitted by him along with those before the authority concerned (Annexure III), there is no whisper with regard to their reservation and cavil on the grounds as urged by them initially before the learned Tribunal and ventilating before this Court. 9. In R.S. Jayakumar & Ors. (Supra), the process involved was one for selection for undergoing Rangers’ training so as to render the successful candidates eligible for promotion to the post of Dy. Rangers/Foresters in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service. 9. In R.S. Jayakumar & Ors. (Supra), the process involved was one for selection for undergoing Rangers’ training so as to render the successful candidates eligible for promotion to the post of Dy. Rangers/Foresters in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service. In the advertisement issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, it was, inter alia, mentioned in categorical terms that only approved probationers and members in the respective category of service would be eligible to participate in the process of selection. The respondents in the reported case, though, were neither appointed to the service nor were approved probationers applied for and were allowed to participate in the selection and were recommended for the training course. The challenge to their eligibility qua the prescriptions in the advertisement, they being neither appointed to the service nor approved probationers, were upheld by the Apex Court, propounding such a departure was impermissible. Though, incidentally, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has pressed into service this decision to bring home the point that deviation from the advertised norms is not sanctioned in law, we, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are unable to lend our concurrence to this proposition in absence of any material demonstrating in unmistakable terms that the respondent-Railways in advertising the vacancies as above, had intended to maintain a distinct and clear compartmentalization of the vacancies so much so to prohibit any selected candidate working under the Workshop Cadre to be appointed against a vacancy in the Workshop (M&P) Cadre. In the factual premise as above, this decision is of no avail to the writ petitioners. 10. In the above view of the matter, we find no merit in the challenge. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _____________