- (1.) Several hundred Railway Engineers who should have been busy elsewhere, building bridges, laying-or doubling tracks andso on have found themselves in the corridors of this court in pursuit of the loaves of career. Quite a contingent was present in court anxiously watching the proceedings and listening with rapt attention to every word that fell from counsel and judge. One could not help wondering whether this multi-tiered,'multivarna' service-system was itself not productive of a career neurosis, destructive of the very efficiency which it sought to achieve.
(2.) In this case, as in most other service matters that reach this court, the questions which arise for, consideration relate to classification, confirmation, seniority, promotion etc. , questions which appear to agitate the minds of the members of all services. Administrators seeking to find solutions to some of the problems very soon discover that their solutions are no more than illusions and have created other problems. First one party and then another party, all seek the protection of the court. The court is no expert administrator. Lacking expertise, lacking the administrator's access to information, there are obvious limitations to what the court may do, The, "court may at best attempt to solve some basic legal issues. That the court strives to do without disturbing the administrative equilibrium.
(3.) The service with which we are concerned in 'this -case is the -Indian Railway Service of engineers Class I. While the petitioners claim that they were appointed to this service after selection by the Union public service commission, the respondents allege that the petitioners were appointed as temporary Engineers only, constituting a special class and service by themselves, and were not -appointed to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers, Class I at all.;