JUDGMENT

PUNCHHI, J.:—These are a handful of writ petitions and special leave petitions which, on grant of leave hereby, and having become appeals, can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The fulcrum of the controversy herein, and the shadow in which it works is a three - judge Bench decision of this Court in Katyani Dayal v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCR 139, decided on March 26, 1980. Before adverting to the facts and circumstances in which this cause has been presented to this Court it would be fruitful to give a broad outline of Katyani Dayals case, in the immediately succeeding paragraphs.

3. Connected with Katyani Dayals case (1980(3) SCR 139) were writ petitions filed in a representative capacity, purporting to represent all temporary Assistant Engineers (on a later point of time known as temporary Assistant Officers) appointed by the Railway Board, pursuant to the authority given by the President of India, on the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission; selection based on interview alone. There was a separate classification of such temporary Assistant Officers when compared with Indian Railway Service Engineers (Class I). Direct recruits to the