The main legal point established is the interpretation of Rule 63.1 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, allowing the training period to be counted towards the calculation of service for eligibility in the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

S. N. Prasad, J - In both these writ petitions the issue related to fixation of seniority is involved, as such they have been decided to be heard together and accordingly heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The brief fact of the cases in both the writ petitions is that the petitioners have been deprived from participating in the selection process initiated for fulfilling the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the Railway Protection Force as per the provision of Rule 72 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The eligibility condition to participate in the selection process for consideration of the cases for promotion to the said post is that an employee working as Constable is required to complete ten continuous years of service but the petitioners are not having the ten continuous years of service but however they completed ten continuous years of service if the training period would be counted towards the period of service.

All the petitioners have shown their willingness but in pursuance to the selection process initiated on 22.3.2010 for filling up of 20 vacancies for the year 2009-10 they have not been allowed to participate in the selection test which led them to approach this court by filing writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.6671 and 6672 of 2010 in which an interim order was passed on 13.4.2010 allowing the petitioners to participate in the recruitment test. The said writ petitions were finally been disposed of vide order dtd.28.4.2010 by a Division Bench of this Court, by putting reliance upon the provision of Rule 63.1 of R.P.F. Rules, 1987 by directing the authorities to publish the result of the petitioners, test of which was held on 28.4.2010 and consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of ASI. The petitioners' results were published and they have been selected and promoted to the post of ASI and accordingly sent on training.

The other set of employees who were similarly situated to that of writ petitioners of W.P.(C) Nos.6671 and 6672 of 2010 have also approached to this court after disposal of those two writ petitions by filing another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 and while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dtd.12.8. 2001, this court has passed an order by directing the authority to extend the same benefit as has been extended to the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) Nos.6671 and 6672 of 2010 with a further direction upon the opposite parties to conduct examination in accordance with law inviting applications from the eligible persons and after publication of result the correct position of seniority must be maintained amongst the persons who will be found successful vis-?-vis the persons who are selected pursuance to the departmental examination held on 28.4.2010.

The private opposite parties are the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 and they have shown their willingness to participate in the selection process for fulfilling 21 posts earmarked for the selection year 2011-12 and 8 vacancies which remained unfilled in the selection year 2009-10, total comes to 29 vacancies and they have been selected and promoted to the post of ASI. The private opposite parties, after their selection, have been included in the seniority list by publishing a provisional gradation list along with the petitioners in pursuance to the observation made by the division bench of this court in W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 also by inviting objections from the aggrieved for publication of final gradation list.

These petitioners have filed these two writ petitions invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred to this court under Article 226 of the constitution of India by seeking a direction that the private opposite parties, who have been appointed in terms of altogether a separate selection process, may not be given parity by treating them as appointees of the year 2009-10, selection of which was conducted on 28.4.2010.

3. The opposite parties - State as