D.P.GUPTA, ACTG.C.J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against an order transferring the petitioner from Bikaner division to Lucknow Division of the Northern Railway. The order of transfer was passed by the Senior Personnel Officer, Northern Railway New Delhi on July 13, 1981 and was communicated to the petitioner by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Bikaner by his notice dated July 13,1981.
(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there was a divisional cadre of Travelling Ticket Examiners (hereinafter called 'the T.T. Es.') and that transfer outside the division was not permissible. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Prem Parveen v. Union of India 1971 SLR page 659. In that case, it was alleged that the Directorate of Extention and office of the Regional Station were two separate cadre and the respondents conceded in their return that they constituted two separate cadres. It was on the basis of the admission of the respondents that a learned Judge of Delhi High Court held that normally it is expected that the Government employees, who join a particular cadre, would have the range of their transferability determined within that cadre, A person who is recruited to a particular cadre, should not be compelled against his wishes to serve outside the cadre. The case of Prem Parveen (supra) is distingue sued in as much as in the present case it cannot be held that the cadre of TTEs is a divisional cadre. The appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of selection made by the Railway Selection Board for the post of TTE in the entire Northen Railway. After the selection was made, optic ns were invited from the selected candidates and petitioner came to be posted in the Bikaner division on the basis pf his option. The question as to whether the cadre of TTE's is division wipe or the cadre is one in respect of a Railway was considered by Agarwal, J. in Laxman Singh v: Union of India S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 103 of 1981, decided on June 30; 1981. In which case a similar matter of transfer of a TTE employed in the Western Railway came Up for decision and the very same arguments which has been advanced be fore me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the cadre of TTE Was division -wise was raised before the learned Judge. It was held in Laxman Singh's case (supra) that a division railway did not constitute a separate railway establishment and transfer of an employee from one division to another in the same railway was permissible under Rule 2011 of the Railway Establishment Code. 1 find myself in agreement with the reasons given by Agarwal, in Laxman Singh's case (supra). Since the petitioner has been transferred with in the Northern Railways it cannot be said that he has been transferred from one railway establishment to another railway establishment.
(3.) ANOTHER contention which was raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the right of consideration for promotion of the petitioner would be affected on account of his transfer from Bikaner division to Lucknow division. It is not the case of the petitioner that their was at present any vacancy on a higher post or cadre, for which the petitioner was to be considered for promotion In State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkami and Ors. : (1981)IILLJ433SC , it has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service but mere chance of Promotion is not. The petitioner has no immediate right of consideration for promotion but what he alleges is that when in future vacancy may arise, he would have a right to be considered for promotion. Thus in substance, what the petitioner has alleged is merely that his chances of promotion would be affected. Mere chance of promotion is not a condition of service and the fact that the chances of promotion were reduced on account of transfer did not amount to change of any condition of service.;