Being aggrieved by the introduction of the said rule 328 2 directly affecting the appellants and also the said circular of the General Manager, DLW, requiting the appel lants to appear at the trade test for the purpose of prepa ration of the seniority list in Highly Skilled Grade II, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The High Court held that the said rules were quite valid and were number arbitrary or discriminatory as companytended on behalf of the appellants.
The High Court took the view that they were only interim and provisional and number regular promotions under the numbermal rules, and that such provisional selection and promotions companyferred numberrights on the appellants to hold the posts to which they were promoted.
70 by the Railway Board by virtue of its power under rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code, were invalid.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
There was a merger of LCW with Diesel Locomo tive Works, Varanasi, for short DLW on August 1, 196 1, as a result of which, all the members of the staff of LCW were taken over by DLW.
1499 of 1974 L. Sanghi, Mrs. S. Dixit and Pradeep Misra for the Appel lants.
The High Court overruled the companytention of the appellants that the new rules, which have been inserted in the Railway Establish ment Manual including rule 328 2 by the Advance Correction Slip No.
1982 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.
Upon the above find ings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants were appointed Trade Apprentices in Locomotive Component Works for short LCW in or about January, 1959.
In regard to the promotions of the appellants.
On July 19, 1962, the appellants were appointed Skilled Artisans after successfully companyplet ing a training for three years and a half.
Several appeals were preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge including one preferred by the Railway Administration before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Rules were amended by the Board by virtue of its power under rule 157 which provides that the Railway Board have full powers to make rules of general application to number gazetted railway servants under their companytrol.
The General Manager, DLW, by his circular dated December 7/8, 1973 directed the appellants to appear at the trade test.
Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok K. Srivastava, C.V. Subba Rao, Mrs. Sushma Suri and A. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
The date of numberification of the amended Rules is March 11, 1973.
1643 of 1984.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellants whereby they challenged inter alia the validity of rule 328 2 of the Railway Estab lishment Code as amended by the Railway Board by Advance Correction Slip No.
