JUDGMENT : AMIT RAWAL, J . The present original petition is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby, relying upon Annexure-R3 circular dated 21.04.2017 and misinterpretation of Rule 183 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, applicants/petitioners have been denied the right to sit in the written examination for the purpose of promotion to the post of Commercial Clerk from the Group ‘D’ posts. 2. Rule 128 of the Railway Manual, Clause (iii) reads as follows : “(iii) 16- 2 /3 % by promotion entirely on merit of 3 Matriculate Group ‘D’ employees from eligible categories, as specified by the Zonal Railways for (ii) above, with a minimum of 2 years regular service in the concerned seniority unit on the basis of a competitive examination consisting of Written Test and Record of Service of 85 and 15 marks respectively.” 3. The expression “concerned seniority unit” would not mean that, on every transfer the employees posted would have to maintain a separate seniority. It has to be treated as from the date of the recruitment. Clause (iii) of Rule 128 says a person must have completed two years of service. Two years of service even on transfer before two years or on normal transfer, cannot take away the right of service put in by any individual in Group ‘D’ posts. Concededly, all the applicants in Tiruchirappalli, when they were appointed in 2014, had served less than two years and thereafter, in Thiruvananthapuram, had served more than two years, thus were entitled to sit in the written examination in terms of the notification Annexure A6 dated 30.06.2017 under the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The applicants had availed the chance of written examination, but ultimately the OA was dismissed by giving the following findings in paragraphs 16 to 19 of the judgment: 16. We have considered these contending issues/ documents and have also perused the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court as produced. We note that the Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 orders have certain features in addition to the points made by learned counsel for the respondents which, in our view, make it further clear that the "concerned seniority unit" being referred to in the relevant Rules relate at least in the case of these Applicants, to the Trivandrum Division to which they were posted from Tiruchirappalli Division. The first of these features is that it is noted in both Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 orders that this is a "one-way transfer" which in a sense seems to imply a permanent posting in a new unit. Second, there is a clear indication in Annexure A-3 as well as in Annexure A-4 orders that the transferred employees will rank not only junior most in the 'respective seniority unit' on the date of their joining, but that they will also not be transferred to the parent seniority unit at a later date. This seems again to indicate that the parent unit is being treated by the Railways as a clear and separate unit in comparison to the unit where they have been transferred. We therefore find that their earlier service cannot be counted for the purpose of calculating the necessary experience qualification of two years. 17. We note in addition that the facts in the cited cases are not similar to the present matter. For example, in the case of C.N. Ponnappan (supra), the relevant rules required "8 years regular service in the grade" for promotion from Lower Division Clerk to the post of Upper Division Clerk. Here the operative portion was "regular service in the grade" and the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that the service rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate ground is regular service and is no different from the service rendered at the place to which he is transferred. The Rules only mentioned in the grade and did not indicate that it should be at the same place. Similarly, in V.M. Joseph (supra), no relevant Rules are mentioned and it was only held that the period of service rendered by him at the earlier place where he held a permanent post and had acquired permanent status cannot be excluded from consideration for determining his eligibility for promotion, though he may have been placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place. It was found that eligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniority as they are two different and distinct factors. However, as noted, there are no Rules that have been indicated. It was found that eligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniority as they are two different and distinct factors. However, as noted, there are no Rules that have been indicated. Thus, in V M. Joseph (supra), as in the case of C.N. Ponnappan (supra), work in a specific, concerned service unit does not appear to have been part of the relevant Recruitment Rules/Guidelines for promotion and it was only indicated that there should be a prescribed length of regular service in a particular grade. This is not the same as it is in the present matter under consideration. 18. Further even in the case of M.M. Thomas (supra), while service in different regions were allowed to be clubbed, it was also noted that this was specifically allowed in the EPFO. The Honourable Apex Court noted in the judgment in Paragraph 8 that in the transfer order of the appellants issued by the Regional PF Commissioner (HRM), EPFO, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, addressed to the Regional PF Commissioners in charge of the Region Tamil Nadu, the following was mentioned as a condition of transfer: "His/Her past service rendered in the cadre of SSA will be counted for the purpose of appearing in the departmental examination......". The Hon'ble Apex Court recorded that this above condition of transfer fortifies their view regarding the intent and purpose of the promotion rule. In contrast in the matter under consideration, the transfer orders issued by the Railways at Annexure A-2, Annexure A-3 and Annexure A-4 do not in any way indicate that the past service in the earlier unit will count towards the promotion in the new unit. On the other hand, the units are indicated as clear and separate establishments; this is fortified by the various conditions as mentioned earlier which make a distinction between the parent seniority unit and the seniority unit to which the employee is posted. 19. We therefore do not allow the reliefs sought for in the O.A and dismiss the same without costs. In passing we note that the applicants are low-level staff with limited avenues for further advancement/promotion within the Railways. 19. We therefore do not allow the reliefs sought for in the O.A and dismiss the same without costs. In passing we note that the applicants are low-level staff with limited avenues for further advancement/promotion within the Railways. It has been informed to us by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Trivandrum Division has since not issued any further call for volunteers for promotion to the posts of Commercial Clerks from the pool of Group D employees, after the last one at Annexure A-6. We are not aware of the reasons for the same, but we note that by simple efÒux of time the applicants have already completed two years of service within the Trivandrum Division. As such, they appear to be eligible in case of any future selection for promotion as per the Rules. We hope that the Railways will consider this aspect positively, if there are no other legal or other impediments, in the overall interest of employee morale and motivation.” 4. The entire genesis of the findings is on the basis of a permanent posting in a new unit meaning thereby, on each and every transfer if the employee that has not rendered two years of service, that period of service will be excluded for the purpose of availing the chance of the promotion as per Rule 128. This is not in true spirit of the service jurisprudence in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by the Supreme Court in M.M. Thomas and others v. Union of India and others [(2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 96] ; [ (2017) 13 SCC 722 )]. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment read as follows: 6. Thus, the only issue before us is whether under the aforesaid Rule, the candidates a who seek promotion through departmental competitive examination for the post of EO/AO, should have served, both in their earlier place of posting and their present place of posting for a period of five years, or whether the candidates should have served for five years in the region where they seek promotion, which in this case is Kerala region. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we are of the view that the words of the aforesaid Rule require five years' regular service "in the respective regions". 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we are of the view that the words of the aforesaid Rule require five years' regular service "in the respective regions". Thus, these words must be understood to mean that the candidates should have served in the respective regions, that is, the regions where they were posted earlier and the region where they seek promotion all together for five years. Thus if a candidate has served in one region and then transferred to another, and seeks promotion in that region, the rule does not require that the candidate must have acquired experience of five years in the region where he seeks promotion, for being considered eligible. What is necessary is a total experience of five years. This must necessarily be so because the service to which the rival parties belong, is an All-India Service, in which the country is demarcated into several regions. In All-India Service, the officers are posted from one region to the other in a routine manner. The purpose of the rule is that such officers are not deprived of their experience in the feeder cadre merely because they have been transferred from one place to another.” 5. The Rule as it is, do not take away the specific right of two years of service, in all, for consideration of promotion. It is settled law that a person cannot be denied the right of consideration for promotion, but the promotion is not a matter of right. 6. In our considered view, the Central Administrative Tribunal has erroneously ignored the provisions of Rule 182 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual while rejecting the case of the applicants. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and allow the OA. Since the applicants were already permitted to sit in the examination, respondents herein are directed to declare the result and take necessary action in case the applicants have cleared the test, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. OP(CAT) stands allowed.