# KATYANI DAYAL AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - **Citation:** [1980] 3 S.C.R. 139 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1981-03-26 - **Bench:** R. S. Sarkaria, R. S. Pathak, 0. Chin1'/.Appa Reddy - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/katyani-dayal-and-ors-v-union-of-india-and-ors-8018 - **Pages:** 40 ## Headnote ' Temporary Assistanl Engineers, gazetted -service recruited by Railway Board -Neither cla.ssi/ied as Class I or Class 11 but given the junior scale of pry of Jndian Service of Engineers Class I, and eligible to be considered for absorption in permanent vacancies as per quota fixed per year-Whether belong to the cadre of Indian Service of Engineers-Whether treating them purely temporary: offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution-Constitution of 'India Arlidu 53, 73(1) (a) and 109-lndian Railway Establishment Ru/ea 102(3) (13), UIS, 106-109, 112, 116, 118(i), 125, 129, 130-133, 140 and RJJ/e 20Q3(3), (22), (211), (30), (31). Several assignments such as the construction of major bridges, new Jines, doubling of and electrification of existing lines etc. were taken up the Engineer .. ing Department of the Indian Rail\\ays and to carry out these works, a number _ of temporary posts of Class I (Indian Railway Service of Engineers) and Clas! II engineers v.·ere created. It was not thought possible to meet additional personnel requirements from eXisting sources, i.e. direct recruitment to Class I by competitive examination and promotion to class II from class Ill Instead, under a special scheme' the various writ petitioners were appointed at various times bet~ ween 1955 and 1964 as temporary Assistant Engineers by the Railway Board. Everyone of them was told that the appointment, would be on a ten1porary basis, that the ~ost to which they were appointed would be neither in Class I nor in Class II service though they were eligible, on completion of three year's service, to be considered along with other temporary Assistant Engineers for absorption B c D E F 1n Class I (Junior Seal~) _against vaaa11cies ear-marked from time to time for G such absorption in the Indian Railway Service of Engineers cadre upto a maximum of six pe~ year, and that in the event of their being selected in Class I Service their seniority would count from the date of the permanent appointment to Class I service. They were required to execute service agreements "as applicable to temporary officers". The petitioners accepted the terms offered to them and joined duty in the post to which they were appointed. The petitioners ,aJso executed agreements in a standard form known as "Agreement for Tempol'lll'Y Assistant Officers of the Indian Railways~. H 140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. A Though in their orders of lapointment as temporary Assistant Engineers tho · petitioners and others were told that six of them would be absorbed into tho. Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I every year, the quota was increaa~ ~"""" ed to eight per year in 1957 and fifteen per year in 1961. In 1960, the quota. was fixed at 60 per cent of the actual intake of probationers from ·the CES- etc.. ,. examinations. Again in 1975 the quota was increased to 25 per year. The B net result was that all but a 107 temporary Assistant Engineers were left UO· absorbed by the time of the filing of the writ petitions and they too ·wercfullllly absorbed in 1979 by a blanket order. On September 17, 1965, the Railway Board decided that the temporary officers so absorbed ioto the Railway Service of Engineers should be given wcightage in seniority "on the basis of c half the total number of Years of continuous se~ice in working posts on Ilailways prior to their permanent absorption into Class I, subject to maxirnum weightage of five years." One of the writ petitioners, Katyani Dayal field a writ petition in the l~lla habad High Court claiming promotion to the Senfor scale post of District D Officer. He found his claim on Rule 133(3)(c) of the Railway Establishment Code on the basis that he was an Assistant Officer within the meaning of that expression as then defined by Rule 102(3). The High Court allowed the writ petition and gave a direction to the Railway Administration to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment in officiating vacancies to the post of District Officer as ## Text _Characters 0–39,816 of 100,985. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39816 for what follows._ , 139 KATYANI DAYAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. March 26, 1981) (R. S. SARKARIA, R. S. PATHAK AND 0. CHIN1'/.APPA REDDY, JJ.] ' Temporary Assistanl Engineers, gazetted -service recruited by Railway Board -Neither cla.ssi/ied as Class I or Class 11 but given the junior scale of pry of Jndian Service of Engineers Class I, and eligible to be considered for absorption in permanent vacancies as per quota fixed per year-Whether belong to the cadre of Indian Service of Engineers-Whether treating them purely temporary: offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution-Constitution of 'India Arlidu 53, 73(1) (a) and 109-lndian Railway Establishment Ru/ea 102(3) (13), UIS, 106-109, 112, 116, 118(i), 125, 129, 130-133, 140 and RJJ/e 20Q3(3), (22), (211), (30), (31). Several assignments such as the construction of major bridges, new Jines, doubling of and electrification of existing lines etc. were taken up the Engineer .. ing Department of the Indian Rail\\ays and to carry out these works, a number _ of temporary posts of Class I (Indian Railway Service of Engineers) and Clas! II engineers v.·ere created. It was not thought possible to meet additional personnel requirements from eXisting sources, i.e. direct recruitment to Class I by competitive examination and promotion to class II from class Ill Instead, under a special scheme' the various writ petitioners were appointed at various times bet~ ween 1955 and 1964 as temporary Assistant Engineers by the Railway Board. Everyone of them was told that the appointment, would be on a ten1porary basis, that the ~ost to which they were appointed would be neither in Class I nor in Class II service though they were eligible, on completion of three year's service, to be considered along with other temporary Assistant Engineers for absorption B c D E F 1n Class I (Junior Seal~) _against vaaa11cies ear-marked from time to time for G such absorption in the Indian Railway Service of Engineers cadre upto a maximum of six pe~ year, and that in the event of their being selected in Class I Service their seniority would count from the date of the permanent appointment to Class I service. They were required to execute service agreements "as applicable to temporary officers". The petitioners accepted the terms offered to them and joined duty in the post to which they were appointed. The petitioners ,aJso executed agreements in a standard form known as "Agreement for Tempol'lll'Y Assistant Officers of the Indian Railways~. H 140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. A Though in their orders of lapointment as temporary Assistant Engineers tho · petitioners and others were told that six of them would be absorbed into tho. Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I every year, the quota was increaa~ ~"""" ed to eight per year in 1957 and fifteen per year in 1961. In 1960, the quota. was fixed at 60 per cent of the actual intake of probationers from ·the CES- etc.. ,. examinations. Again in 1975 the quota was increased to 25 per year. The B net result was that all but a 107 temporary Assistant Engineers were left UO· absorbed by the time of the filing of the writ petitions and they too ·wercfullllly absorbed in 1979 by a blanket order. On September 17, 1965, the Railway Board decided that the temporary officers so absorbed ioto the Railway Service of Engineers should be given wcightage in seniority "on the basis of c half the total number of Years of continuous se~ice in working posts on Ilailways prior to their permanent absorption into Class I, subject to maxirnum weightage of five years." One of the writ petitioners, Katyani Dayal field a writ petition in the l~lla habad High Court claiming promotion to the Senfor scale post of District D Officer. He found his claim on Rule 133(3)(c) of the Railway Establishment Code on the basis that he was an Assistant Officer within the meaning of that expression as then defined by Rule 102(3). The High Court allowed the writ petition and gave a direction to the Railway Administration to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment in officiating vacancies to the post of District Officer as soon as vacancies arose, ignoring the circulars which gave E preference to Class I junior scale officers of four years standing or .more. as. agaiost temporary Assistan.t Engineers. An appeal filed by the Railway Admi· nistration under the Letters Patent was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Though. the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on August 1, 1974, the Railway Administration did not implement the judgment but instead on December 12, 1975 amended the Rule 102(3), !33(3)(c) and (f) and F introduced new rule 102(17) so as to expressly exclude temporary Assistan< Officers (newly defined by Rule 102 (7), fromr tho category of Assistant Offi· cep and thus make them ineligible for promotion to the senior scale un.der Rule 133(3)(c) and (f). G The petitioners, therefore, have filed these writ_ petitions in a representaHve capacity purporting to represent all temporary Assistant Engineers appoi!lted on the recommendation of the Union Public ServiCe Commission, claiming that, in law they could only be and were appoioted to tho Indian Railway Service of Engioeers Oass I right from the beginning and that the Railway Board was \vrong in_ treating them as belonging to neither Class I nor aass H II. They claimed that they were appointed to temporary posts io the cadre 0£ Indian Railway Service of Engioeers aass I and that their seniority had to be reckoned on the basis of their length of continuous service, though they ··~ ' ···"'--- ' KATYANI DAYAL V. UNION Ul conceded that in any given year those appointed on the ~asis of th~ results of A .the competitive examination might. be placed above those appointed on the basis of the selection by the Unio?- Public Service Commission. Dismissing the petitions the Court HELD: (1) Arts. 53, 73(1)(a) and 309, make it clear that the Pmi11ent, acting directly or through officers Subordinate to him is free to constitute a service (with as many cadres as he chooses)·' to create posts without -constituting ~ service or to create posts outside (the cadres of) the constituted service. The President (or the person directed by him) may, or, again, if he "SO chooses he may not make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such service or posts. He is also free to make 9r not to mlake appointments to such services or posts. Nor is it obligatory for him to make rules of recruitment etc. before a service may be constituted or a post created or filled. But, if there is an Act of Parliament or a ru1e:: under the proviso to Article 309 on the matter, the executive power under Articles 53 and 73, may not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with or contrary to •uch Act or Tule. [162D·F] B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, [1966] SCR 682 @ 686; State of KerGla v. M. K. Krishnan Nair and ors., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 864 at 874; referred to. (2) The previous existence of the Indian Railway Service of Engineers -and the rules made for recruitment to that service do not bar the constitution of another service or the creation of posts outside the cadres of the Indian Railway Service of Engineers. Though to start with there was no Presidential sanction for the creation of the posts of Temporary Assistant Officers in the various departments of Indian Railways, which were neither in Class I nor in Class II but merely in gazetted service, the matter was soon rectified by 1he grant of Presidential sanction for the posts in November 1956, and by the President further specifying the Railway Board as the authority competent to make appoiniment of such temporary Assistant Officers. The posts of Temporary Assistant Officers were thus created and appointments made, under '\'alid authority and outside the existing cadres of the Indian Railway Service <>f Engineers. The letters of ''indent", the advertisements, the letters of appointment nnd the agreements show that the temporary Assistant Officers appointed in this fashion after selection by the Union Public Service Commis- 'Sion were to be a source of recruitment to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I. If Temporary Assistant Officers were to be a source of Gazetted Railway Servaot drawing pay on the scale applicable to junior Scale Officers but not classified either as Class I or as Class II Officer". The expression Assistant Officer was redefined so as nut to include a Temporary Assistant Officer who was not 'classified' either as Oass I or as Class II. [166 C-D] B c The amendments do not have any effect one way or the other on the status D of the Temporary Assist3J1t Officers. What was always well known to the Temporary Assistant Officers and the Railway Board and whlat was the inevitable result of the Presidential sanction for the creatjon of posts which were not to be classified either as Cass I or Class II, was made explicit in the Indian Railwny Establishment Code also by the introduction .of these amendments. This became necessary because in the Writ Petition filed by Katyani Dayal, the Allahabad High Court, while appearing to hold ffiat Temporary Assistant Officers belonged neither to Class I nor to Class II service, held that they came within the then existing definition of 'Assistant Officer' so as to entitle them for promotion under r. 133 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. [166E-G] The definition of Assistant Officer was not to be read in isolation but should have been read conjunctively with Rules 105, 106 and 108. A reference to Rule 105 would show that for the purposes of the rules in the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Railway services were to be classified into Class I, Gass II, Class rn, Class IV and workshop sWf. Rule 106 specified the appointments and categories falling under the services mentioned in Rule 105. Rule 108 required the Railway Board to fix the •trength of the Railway Services, aaso I and II. There could therefore, be no question of an officer not falling witBin the class, C>tegory or cadres specified in rules 105, 106 and 108 claiming to E F G' be an 'Assistant Officer' within the meaning of that expressioJl. A person reH oorited to the pool of Temporary Assistant Officer not classified as Qass I or aa.. II Officer could not claim to belong to the Class, categ0ry or cadre spe- IA B 144 SUPREME COURT REPO:RTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. ci:fied in Rules 105, 106 and 108 and was, therefore, not an A.s.!i~tant Officer within the meaning of that expression even before the 1975 amendment. [167 D-F] ( 6) Tuer~ are and there can be no absolutes when the Court considers claims to justice on complaints of inequality. The Marxian of a classless society, ful\vever laudable that may be, is evidently not what is sought to be achieved by Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The goal is a limited one. It is equality among comparables. A necegsary, but not necessarily 1::ynical, implication of equality among comparables is the permissibility of rea·sonable classification, havin,& nexus with the object to be achieved. If two :'ervices started and continued dissimilarly, though they apparently discharged similar C duties, they were not comparable services so as to furnish a basis for tbe claim to equality. But if in the same service there were two sources of recruitment to the same service, a classification based solely on source of recruitw!nt was not permissible. [176 E-G] State of Puniab v. Jogindtr Singh, [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 169, 191, 192; D Roshan Lal 'fandon v. Union of India, [1968] 1 SCR 185 and Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay an!J Ors., [1966] 3 SCR 600; referred to. E 'F 'G (7) Those who were appointed to ex-cadre posts outside the rules and .\./ \Vhose tenure was therefore precarious could not claim to be treated on the same footing as those who were appointed strictly in accordance ~vith the rules and posts borne on the cadre of the service. [177 F-G] lf. S. V crma & Ors. v. Secretary, Ministry of Shipping and Transpor.t & Ors. [1979] 4 sec 415 @ 427, 428; referred to. (8) The classification of Temporary Assistant Office!s separately from the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I is neither discriminatory nor is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constituttion for the reason that it bad no nexus to the object to be achieved namely efficiency of service. [167 G-H] _ The service comprising the Temporary Assistant Officers and the Indian --( Railway Service of Engineers Class I started separately and never became one. The objects of their recruitment were different, the methods of recruitment were dissimilar and the appointing authority was not the same. The training that was imparted was also unlike. The very tenure of the Temporary Assistant · II Officers was precarious and their immediate aspiration was only to be absorbed into the Indian Railway Services of Engineers Class I.. These distinctivu features marked out the Temporary A~sistant Officers as a Qass apart from the Indian ' KATYANI DAYAL V. UNION 145 .Railway Service of Engineers Class I and therefore there w.. no question A >-' -Of entitlement of equal rights with the latter. Of course, once they were .absorbed into the Indian Railway Service of Engineers they would be entitled not to be treated differently thereafter. Their seniority would ordinarily be reckoned from the date of their absorption into the Indian Railway Service of Engineers, as promised in their letters of appointment. No doubt these officers meriteppeara to have 'tried to make the long wait a little less tedious by giving them weiaht- .age of half of their length of service as Temporary Assistant Officers, subjec• .to maximum of five years [ 177 D-G] Equally important, is . the fundamental qualitative difference, linked with ·the method of recruitment. True, the minimum educationa! gualification is the same. But, those who are recruited directly to the Indian Railway Service c of Engineers Clla-ss I are subjected to stiff and competative, written and personality tests. Only the very best can aspire to come out successful. The Temporary Assistant Officers were not subjected either to a ¥iTitten or to a D ~ personality test but were selected on the basis of an interview by the Union ·Public Service Commission. In addition to the minimum educational qualification, three years' experience as a Civil Engineer was al~o prescribed. Thu! while brilliance 'va\l the beacon light which beckoned those aspiring to beCome members of the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I, it was replaced .!by experience in the case of those wanting to be Temporary Assistant Officers. E Again the appointing authority in the case of Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I is the President while the appointing authority in the case -0f Temporary Assistant Officers was the Railway Board, no doubt, pursuant to the authority given by the President. Different courses of train!ng w~re prescribed for the Indian Railway Service of Engineers and the Temporary Assistant Officers. For the Indian Railway Service of Engineers the training is an F intensive and comprehensive one designed to equip them for higher posts in ··the Department too; while the training for Temporary Assistant Engineers was a brief six months' training intended merely to equip them for carrying out -1he specific jobs. In the matter of terms and conditions_ of service, while G • the provisions of the Iμdian Railway Establishment Cbde are fully applicable ·to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I, those provisions are appli- -cable to 'Temporary Assistant Officers' to the extent there is no specific provision in their letter of appointment and agreement. [169 C-H] State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, [!963] Supp. 2 SCR 169, @ 191, 192, ..Ki5hori Mohan/al v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1962 SC 1139, Jammu & Kashmir 8 v. Triloki Nath Klwsa and Ors., (1974] 1 SCR 771 @ 790, 792 Roshan Lal l'andon v. Union of India, [1968] 1 SCR 185; Mervyn C'Jutindo and Ors. ·v. U6 SUPREME COURT llEl'O:ll.TS [1980] 3 S.C.R •. A Call«:fM' of CJISI...,., Bomb•y and Ors., [1966] 3 llCR 600, Mohammad" Su;.t Ali lllld Ors. v. Union' of India and Ors. ete., [1975] 1 SCR 449 @ 481, S. II. Potw"""lwl aNI Ors. etc. v. State of Maha,tJ!Jhtra and Ors. [1977] 3 SCR 775; A. K. Subraman v. Union of India, [1975] 2 SCR 979 and M. S. Verma and Ors. v. Secty. Ministry of Shipping & Transport and Ors., [1979] 4 SOC. 415 @ 4!7, 428; discussed. B Ohse:rv.ation : There is nothing 'doctrinnaire' in the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and "equal status for equa.l pay and equal work". They are not goals to be~ C liCOffed at. It may be that in the present societal context, the goals may appear to be distant. But they are goals worthy of attainment and would be achieved in Ille not too distant future. [178 A-BJ ORIGINAL ! (CIVIL) APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition. B Nos. 147 to 151 of 1976. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution) WITH SPECIAL LEA VE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 7905 OF 1979 E From the Judgment and Order dated 29-8-1978 of the Allahabad' F JI High,. Court)n. S.A. No. 887 /70. M. C. JJhandare, Mrs. S. Bhandare and T. Sreedharan for the l Petitioners. L. N. Sinha, Attorney General, Mr. M. K. Banerjee, Addi. SolicitorGenera/, R. B. Datar, A. K. Ganguli, R. N. Sachthey and Miss A. Subhashini for RR. 1 and 2. F. S. Nariman, Anil B. Dawan, P. H. Parekh, C. B. Singh and' R. Karanjwala for RR 18 & 19. S. C. GTJpta and Ramesh= Chand for RR 14. Madan Bhatia and D. Goburdhan for RR 20. Y.~S. Chitale,, V. M. Tarkunde, and A. N. Karkhanis for RR 28' and 31. S. D. Gupta in person for impleading RR in WP 147/76. Girdharee Singh· and S. K. Jain for the Intervener. • I KATYAM DAYAL v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 147 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, A. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-Several hundred Railway Engineers who should have been busy elsewhere, building bridges, laying or doubling tracks and so on have found themselves in the corridors of this Court in pursuit of the leaves of career. Quite a contingent was present in Court anxiously watching the proceedings and listening with expect Battention to every word that fell from counsel and judge. One could~ not help wondering whether this multitiered. 'multi-varne' Servicesystem was itself not productive of a career. neurosis, destructive of the very efficiency which is sought to achieve. 2. In this case, as in most other service matters that reach this Court, the question which arise for consideration relate to classification, con1irmation, seniority, promotion etc., questions which appear to agitate the minds of the members of all services. Administrators seeking to find solutions to some of the problems very soon discover that their solutions are no more than illusions and have created other problems. First one party and then another party, all seek the pro· tection of the Court. The Court is no expert administrator. Lacking expertise, lacking the administrator's access to information, there are obvious limitations to what the Court may be. The Court may at best attempt to solve some basic legal issues.' That the Court strives to do without disturbing the administrative equilibrium. 3. The service with which we are concerned in this Case is the Indian Railway Service of Engineers, Class I. While the petitioners claim that they were appointed to this service after selection by the Union Public Service Commission, the respondents allege that the petitioners were appointed as temporary Engineers only, constituting a special class and service by themselves, and were not appointed to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I at all. 4. It appears that from the time of the first Five Year Plan onwards several important assignments such as the construction of major bridges, new lines, doubling of electrification of existing lines etc. were taken up by the Civil Engineering Department of the Indian Railways. It became necessary to create a number of temporary posts of Class I (Indian Railway ~ervice of Engineers) < nd Class II Engineers to carry c E F G out these works. In 1955 it was estimated that about 2CO additional Engineers would 1:e necesrn1y within the rext two years to deal with It the planning, surveying, estimating and construction of the multitude of the prorosed development works. It was not thought possible to A D E IF H 148 SUPREME COURT REPO~US [1980] 3 S.C.R. meet the additional personnel requirements from ex1stmg sources, which were direct recruitment to Class I on the basis of the results of a competitive examination and promotion to Class II from Class III. Though the conversion of some of the temporal)' posts into perma.nent ones might meet part of the requirement, it was thought, recruitment through normal channel to such posts would necessarily have to be spread over a period of years so as to avoid 'bunching of officers within particular age group'. It was, therefore, decided to recruit, in the first instance, fifty temporary Engineers immediately. Their scale of pay was to be the same as that of the Indian Railway Service of Engineers. The age limit was to be 25 to 35 years so as to attract Engineers with practical experience. The appointments. were to be normally made on the minimum of the time scale but persons with previous experience could be fitted into the scale at a higher stage. As the posts were to be temporary, it was decided that an incentive should be given to attract suitable candidates by reserving a:firoportiou of the permanent vacancies in the Indian Railway Service of Engineers each year for being filled by such temporary Engineers. Six vacancies in the Indian Railway Service of Engineers were to be so earmarked annually to start with. The quota could be increased later. On permanent appointment to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers seniority would count from the date of such appointment. Proposals on these lines were conveyed by the Railway Board to the Union Public Service Commission on February 21, 1955 with a request to take steps for the early recruitment of temporary Engineers. A formal requisition in the prescribed form was also sent to the Union Public Service Commission. In thTh form, the post was designated as "Assistant Engineer", the number of posts was mentioned as 50, and, the class of service to which the post belonged was mentioned as "Gazetted Railway Service". Against the heading "whether permanent or temporary", the posts were mentioned as "temporary". Against the column "if the post is temporary, please state : (a) when it was sanctioned; (b) the period for which it has been sanctioned and (c) irrespective of the period of sanction how long it is expected to last and whether it is expected-to be retained on a permanent basis eventually", it was mentioned that the posts would be sanctioned shortly in connection with a number of projects, that the period would be two years in the first instance but was likely to be extended upto five years and that the employment might continue indefinitely but on a temporary basis. It was specified that the candidates would be eligible to be considered tor absorption in permanent vacancies at the rate of six per year. The scale was mentioned as Rs. 350-350-380-380-30-590-E.B.-30-770-40-850, this being the Junior Scale of pay of Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I. It was I ' ) .. KATYANI DAYAL v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 149 said that higher initial salary was permissible according to experience and qualifications. The academic qualifications were to be the same as for regular recruitment to Indian Railway Service of Engineers. Against the heading prospects of promotion to higher post it was stated that they might be considered for promotion to senior scale posts in the grade of Rs. 600-40-1000-50/2-1150 according to the exigencies of service. Similar proposals and "indents" for recruitment of temporary officers to six other departments of the Railways were also simultaneously made. 5. Pursuant to the requisition by the Railway Board, the Union Public Service Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications .for "50 posts of Assistant Engineers, Ministry of Railways, Service Class I (Gazetted), posts temporary for two years in the first instance but likely to continue". The minimum educational qualification was stated to be a Degree in Civil Engineering, but an additional qualification of 'about 3 years experience as a Civil Engineer' was also prescribed. The qualification was relaxable at the discretion of the commision in the case of candidates otherwise well qualified. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the candidates would be eligible 'for being considered for absorption in permanent vacancies at the rate of six per year' and might be considered 'for promotion to senior grade posts in the scale of Rs. 600-40-1100-50/2-1150 according to the exigencies of service'. It appears that the reference to Class I in the advertisement was considered by the Railway Board to be a mistake. The Railway Board, therefore, addressed a letter dated October 31, 1955 to the Union ·Public Service Commission pointing out that in their requisition they had indicated "Gazetted Railway Service" as the service to which recruitment was to be made and that it was not intended that it should be either Class I or Class II. It was also mentioned that statements had been made on the floor of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha that the posts were "temporary" and "neither in CTass- -fnor in Class II". The Commission was accordingly requested to issue asuitable correction slip. Thereafter, in the subsequent advertisements"" issued by the Union Public Service Commission there was no reference to Class I. It was merely mentioned that applications were invited for specified number of posts of "Assistant Engineers (Civil), Ministry of Railways, posts temporary but likely to continue". A B c D E F G 6. The petitioners in the various Writ Petitions who submitted B their applications in re•ponse to such advertisements, were selected by the Union Public Service Commission, at various times between 1955 F 15 0 SUPREME COURT !tEPO..,TS (1980] 3 S.C.R. and 1964 aa:ui were offered appointments as 'Temporary Assistant Ent\neers' by the Railway Board. Everyone of them was told that the appointment would be on a temporary basis in the scale of Rs. 3 503'°"380-38tJ..30-590-E.B.-30-770-40-850. They were also . expressly oold that the posts to which they were appointed would be neither in CJ:ass I nor in Class II, service though they were eligible, on compleition of three years service, to be considered alongwith other tempo:rary Assistant Engineers for absorption in Class I (Junior Scale) agB,inst vacancies ear-marked from time to time for the absorption of temporary Assistant Lngineers in the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Cadre upto a maximum of six per year. They were also expressly informed that in the event of their being selected in Class I Service their seniority would count from the date of their permanent appointment to Class I Service. They were required to execute service agreements "as applicable to temporary officers". It was also stipulated that in all matters not specifically referred to in the order of appointment, the person appointed would be governed by the provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and the extant orders issued from time to time. The petitioners accepted the terms offered to them and joined duty in the posts to which they were appointed. 7. The agreements which the petitioners and others like them were required to execute and which they presumably did execute (were in a standard form known as 'Agreement for Temporary Assistant Officers of the Indian Railways'. Paragraph 2 of the standard form and agreement specified that the appointment was in a gazetted post C wloich is neither in Class I nor in Class II service) on scale Rs. 350-350-380-38030-590-E.B.-770-40-850. Paragraph· 5 mentioned that the person appointed would be eligible along with other temporary Assistant Officers "for being considered for absorption in the permanent vacancies in the Class I (junior scale) of the ............ department upto a L ·~. maximum number of vacancies in a year as may be fixed by the Govern- ~ ···· ment" and that in the event of his being selected for that service his seniority would count from the date of confirmation. Paragraph 6 recited that he would be considered for appointment to a Senit>r Scale · post. The agreement provided that in respect of matters for which no provision was made in it, the provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Code from time to time in force or rules made thereunder shall apply to the extent they were applicable to temporary Assistant officers. It was further provided that the decision of the Government as to their applicability, interpretation and effect shall be final. 8. It should be mentioned here that though there was no previous Presidential sanction for making appointments to posts which were -,\_ . • KATYANI DAYAL l'. um(;N (Chinltf1{1(HI Reddy, J.). t 51 -neither in-Class lljror in Class II but merely in 'gazetletl serviae', the tJllltter was rectified and Presidential .,sanction was St!bseqnently ell__ __ _ - . tained in November, 1956. This was communicated by the Raitwi'y Board to the General Managers of all Indian Railways by letter No. E-55RC-16 (Pt. A) dated November, 22, 1956. It was also decided by -