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 Indian Railway Service of Engineers (Class I) were subjected to competitive written and personality tests and in the nature of things only the. very best could emerge out successfully. On the other hand temporary Assistant Officers, (hereafter referred as Officers at places) were neither subjected to written nor to a personality test but as said before, were selected on the basis of interview. Besides the minimum educational qualification, which was the same for both the services three years experience as a Civil Engineer was additionally required for the aspirants to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers (Class I) (hereafter referred to as the Engineers at places). While the President was the appointing authority of the Engineers, the Railway Board was the appointing authority of the Officers. Both the members of these services on selection were due for different courses of training earmarked separately. There were a host of other factors which distinguished the quality and character of the personnel of the two parallel services as elaborately detailed in Katyani Dayals case (supra).

4. Between the years 1955 and 1964, as many as 553 officers (temporary Assistant Engineers) were appointed by the Railway Board through the Union Public Service Commission. Though in the letters of appointment the officers (temporary Assistant Engineers) and others concerned were told that six of them would be absorbed into the Indian Railway Service of Engineers (Class I) every year, this figure in the subsequent years was increased from time to time, when in 1975, the figure as increased stood at 25 per year. The net result was that after absorption, 107 Officers were residually left unabsorbed in the year 1976 by the time of the filing of the connected writ petitions in Katyani Dayals case and they too were finally absorbed in 1979 by what was described as a "blanket order". Before hand on September 17, 1965, the Railway Board had taken a decision to the effect that the Officers so absorbed into the Indian Service of Engineers would be given weightage in seniority "on the basis of half the total years of continuous service in working posts in Railways prior to their permanent absorption into Class I, subject to a maximum weightage of five years". The then writ petitioners, describing themselves as members of the Federation of Temporary Officers Association, Indian Railways joining with them, their President, Vice-President and Secretary of the aforesaid Federation as writ petitioners approached this Court in a representative capacity to seek relief in their seniority status.

5. The principal Claim of the writ petitioners was that Officers were appointed to temporary posts on the cadre of Engineers and that their seniority had to be reckoned on the basis of their leng