The fact that the respondents 1 and 2 were companyfirmed against such supernumerary posts is number in dispute.
Hence the Railway administration has filed the present appeal.
Rule 9, their letter dated the 2nd March, 1962 This letter embodies rules of general application to a particular class of number gazetted railway servants.
Certain temporary posts were, upgraded and thus clerks of Grade II companyld succeed in getting promotion Grade I. A few days later another circular letter Ext.
Respondents 2 and 7 to 9 passed the said examination in November, 1956 and respondent 1 passed it lastly in May, 1957.
The subject in this letter was upgrading of posts After reviewing their earlier decisions the Railway Board decided to make certain charges in the distribution of posts in the higher grades.
P 4 dated the 6th of March, 1972 by filing a writ petition in the Kerala High Court.
Toe decision of the Railway Board was companymunicated in their letter Ext.
The learned single Judge accepted the stand taken on behalf of the appellants but the Division Bench rejected it.
But a difficulty arose as to their companyfirmation in permanent posts as numbersuch posts were available for them from 1st April 1956.
Rule 3 dated the 13th March 1957 was issued by the Railway Board to the General Managers mentioning therein that the orders companytained in the earlier letter had the approval of the President and clarifying certain other matters in relation to the upgrading of the posts We may number refer to the other circular letter dated 18th March, 1959, Ext.
This is also clear from the office order dated the 5th May, 1960 Ext.
Rule 6 dated the 25th November, 1959 according to which they were to be companyfirmed after creation of supernumerary posts in lieu of the then existing temporary posts which were to be set off against permanent vacancies arising subsequently.
Then came the decision of the Railway Board companytained in Ext.
Rule 2 was a circular letter of the Railway Board dated the 7th March, 1957 issued to the General Managers of all Indian Railways and other authorites.
As a provisional measure, since the final implementation of the orders was to take time, it was decided as mentioned in paragraph 13 of this circular to upgrade certain posts of clerks of the Accounts Department.
They were all promoted eventually to Accounts Clerks, Grade I. In the seniority list, however, respondents 3 to 9 were shown as senior to respondents 1 and 2 Hence the letter challenged the order Ext.
The petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge, but their appeal was allowed by the Division Bench.
L. Untwalia, J. This is an appeal by special leave.
Respondents 1 to 9 were clerks in the Southern Railway in Grade II.
