The main legal point established is that a regularly selected employee for a position is not required to undergo a regular selection process for subsequent promotions, and relevant notifications apply to determine promotion eligibility.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 24. 7. 2001 and 13. 12. 2000 ( respectively Annexures 12 and 11 to the writ petition), passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal), in O. A. No. 1055 of 1998-Arun Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India and Ors. . Petitioner has also prayed for the quashing of the orders dated 28. 07. 1997, 21. 07. 1997, 03,01. 1997 and 23. 01. 1996 respectively Annexures 10, 9, 8 and 6 to the writ petition), passed by Railway Authorities in connection with seniority of the petitioner. The said orders were challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original application.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner after having been selected through Railway Service commission started his career as Assistant Station Master and was posted at Allahabad. He was promoted after positive act of selection in the higher grade of Assistant Station Master i. e. Rs. 455-700 (revised Rs. 1400-2300) with effect from 01. 08. 1982. In 1988 the petitioner was medically decategorized on periodical medical test on administrative grounds and, as per railway Boards Circular on the subject, he was absorbed in the alternative grade in the commercial Department as Head Parcel Clerk /chief Parcel Clerk with full protection of pay and seniority in the grade of Rs. 1400-2300 with effect from 10. 1. 1989. The next promotion which was due to the petitioner in the Commercial ( 3 ) DEPARTMENT was in the grade of Rs. 550-750 (revised 1600-2660) as Coaching Supervisor. Promotion in the said grade was to be regulated in terms of Railway Boards Circular No. E 369/0 dated 4. 8. 1967 (Annexure v to the petition ). In view of that Circular the petitioner was promoted in the grade of Rs. 1600-2660 through Railway Boards letter dated 6. 2. 1987. However, when the promotion list was published for the grade of Rs. 1600-2660 in Coaching supervisor category in July, 1989 the petitioners name was not included therein. Petitioner represented against the non-inclusion of his name in the promotion list and on his representation in the next list of promotion-dated 9. 2. 1990 the name of the petitioner was duly included lor the post of Coaching Supervisor in the grade of Rs. 1600-2660. A copy of the list is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the promotion of the petitioner in the aforesaid grade, of Rs. 1600-2660 was substantive. The next promotion of the petitioner was due in the grade of Its. 2000-3200 and for the selection of the candidates in the above grade a notification was issued on 6. 11. 1992 and the name of the petitioner found place at serial No. 3. It is said that this was because of the fact that the petitioner was working in the aforesaid grade of Rs. 1600-2660 substantively and he was within the zone of consideration for promotion in the next higher grade of Rs. 2000-3200. In the meantime a Scheme of restructuring of cadres was introduced and under the aforesaid Scheme all the notifications of the process of selection were extinguished and a new mode of selection was introduced, which was to be followed and subsequently petitioner was selected and promoted vide order dated 13. 5. 1994 as per provisional list and subsequently vide order dated 6. 7. 1994 which was the final order. Copies of these orders have been annexed as Annexure 4 and 5 to the writ petition. The name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 2 ill the first order and in the second order at serial No. 3. Petitioner claims that an office order dated 23. 1. 1996 (Annexure 6 to the petition), was Issued by which the petitioners settled position of seniority was got up set and his name was relegated at serial No. 48 in stead at serial No. 2.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the above arbitrary action of the respondents-authorities, petitioner filed a detailed representa