JUDGMENT : AMIT RAWAL, J. The present Original Petition is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20.07.2023, whereby O.A.No.322/2021 filed by the petitioners/applicants has been rejected. 2. The short controversy involved in this case is as to whether the persons who have given option for employment at Salem, after having done so can turn around after one and a half year and make a request for placement to a different post. For answering the controversy, it would be appropriate to refer few facts. The Railway Recruitment Board came out with a notification dated 03.02.2018 for filling up the various posts of Assistant Loco Pilots and Technicians. There were two stages of Computer Based Test, i.e., CBT1 and CBT2. As per Clause 6 of the notification, it was provided that two stages of examination, i.e., first CBT and second CBT will be performed for Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) and Technicians and after having undertaken the first test, have to give an option for Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) and preference of Railways and posts within the chosen RRB. The RRB refers to about 21 divisions as per the railway-wise summary of the vacancies indicated in Annexure A1. At the relevant point of time, Thiruvananthapuram had 99 vacancies whereas Madurai had 429. The aforementioned vacancies as per the notification in Annexure A1 were mentioned to be either decreasable or increasable and as per Annexure A2, 429 in Madurai increased to 761 and 99 in Thiruvananthapuram increased to 162. All the applicants stood selected after having undertaken the second CBT test as per the result of online examination dated 30.07.2019. During the interregnum, there was a ban of recruitment from 2018 till 2021. On 03.08.2019, all the applicants/petitioners were given an option for being appointed as ALP at Salem Division. All of them had given no objection and appointed in the year 2019. When the ban was lifted, respondents 8 to 24 have been assigned the Thiruvananthapuram Division. After having waited for two years, a representation in Annexure A6 dated 24.06.2021 was submitted which remained undecided giving cause to file the O.A. The stand of the contesting respondents was that owing to be ban for appointment in Thiruvananthapuram, option was given but the objection with regard to appointment at Salem Division was not raised and opted the Salem Division. They are at liberty to make a representation for Inter Divisional Transfer subject to the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. 3. Similar is the argument of Mr. Babu, learned Senior Counsel. 4. Mr. Elvin Peter, learned Senior Counsel submitted that vide Annexure A8, as far as South-Western Railways is concerned, the Railways had adopted a different approach and granted the place of appointment as per the option given after completing the first CRB. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned Tribunal on analysis of the entire materials on record, rendered finding that the challenge was laid only after one and a half years and there was no requirement of scoring higher marks to be given a place of option, the fact remains that there was no challenge to the ban imposed for appointment in Thiruvananthapuram. The selection was made in 2019 after having exercised the option by the applicants on 03.07.2019. When the ban was lifted in 2020-2021, respondents 8 to 24 were appointed in the Thiruvananthapuram Division. If at all the applicants were aggrieved, they could have reserved their rights for being considered to Thiruvananthapuram after having given option, but failed to do so. Thus in our considered view, are estopped in laying challenge much less acquiesced their appointments at Salem Branch. Moreover, the Tribunal has also given one more reasoning by relying upon the other orders in O.A.No.902/2010, in paragraphs 28 and 29 which reads as under: 28.After going through the above exhaustive averments of the applicants as well as the respondents and giving due consideration to the contending issues, we do not feel that a substantial case has been made out by the applicants for allowing the O.A. We do not agree with the contention that they were being discriminated in the matter of appointment. This has been comprehensively dealt with by the respondents in their note which we have outlined above. Further, there is no vested right for the applicants to be considered for posting at a place of his/her choice. The RRBs' are not the decision making authorities in respect of the posting of any of the candidates selected by them. This right, depending upon the level at which the appointment is made, is generally to be exercised by the General Manager of the Zonal Railways through the Principal Chief Personnel Officer (PCPO). The RRBs' are not the decision making authorities in respect of the posting of any of the candidates selected by them. This right, depending upon the level at which the appointment is made, is generally to be exercised by the General Manager of the Zonal Railways through the Principal Chief Personnel Officer (PCPO). The fact that a Replacement Panel was prepared after some time even if it consisted of candidates from the same selection process and a few of the persons in the Replacement Panel have been posted at Trivandrum Division, does not amount to any discrimination against the applicants even if they had scored higher marks and were placed higher in the Selection List. The fact remain that the applicants were appointed much earlier than the respondents at Sl.Nos.8 to 24 and they will be always have a longer length of service. Even if Inter Divisional Transfer/Inter Railway Transfer is opted for by them and they get transferred to Trivandrum and Palghat Divisions on bottom seniority in due course their length of service will be counted in matter of future promotions. Thus, there is no discrimination anyway against them. In any case as this Tribunal pointed out in the earlier referred orders in O.A.No.902/2010 and O.A.No. 1053/2017 what is more important at stake in such matters is not the individual preference or convenience of the candidates in such safety categories like LP & ALP but the efficient running of the railways with paramount importance to safety standards. It has been contended that the Railway administration is not in a position to shift any employee from one division to another due to administrative exigencies. But a fair balance between fresh candidates and seniors with experience is always to be maintained in safety categories. This appears to have been achieved after the intervention of this Tribunal through its orders in O.A.No.902/2010 and ?.?.No.1053/2017. These orders have ensured that the Railways are able to maintain a balance between fresh candidates recruited through the RRB and Inter Divisional Transfer/Inter Railway Transfer requesiees in the ALP cadre. This particular methodology and policy needs to be tried for some time to see whether it is working effectively on the ground. 29. We note that the Respondents at Sl.Nos.8 to 24 have also filed a reply statement in the O.A through counsel, where they have summarised/reiterated what has been mentioned by the official respondents. This particular methodology and policy needs to be tried for some time to see whether it is working effectively on the ground. 29. We note that the Respondents at Sl.Nos.8 to 24 have also filed a reply statement in the O.A through counsel, where they have summarised/reiterated what has been mentioned by the official respondents. They have also stated that if the contention of the applicants is to be accepted, it means that the applicants have occupied the Salem Division vacancies, which were meant for them. When the applicants had received the appointment letters from Salem Division after failing to get a call letter from Trivandrum Division, they could have very well declined the same and waited for posts to fall vacant in Trivandrum Division. It is submitted that at the very moment the applicants accepted the call letter from Salem Division, while they were waiting for the call letter from the Trivandrum Division, they moved out of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to that of Chennai Bench. (However, as noted this Tribunal has gone by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on this issue.) It is submitted by the respondents that once the appointments are made from the list, the persons who have been appointed lose their right to seek an appointment in another post that may fall vacant much after they had been given the appointment. The person loses his candidature as a person to be appointed from the list. Hence, there is no locus standi for the applicants to challenge an appointment from the list at a later stage. The status of the person who got the appointment offer changed the moment he accepted the appointment and joined the service. Giving our consideration to these contentions of the private respondents it may be seen that we are largely accepting their contentions on the above issues which are in line with what has also been brought out by the official respondents." We are of the view that there is no illegality and perversity in the order impugned. No ground for interference is made out. OP(CAT) stands dismissed.