Untwalia, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by certificate granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The facts of the case are almost identical to those in the case of General Manager, South Central Rly. Secundrabad v. A. V. R. Siddhanti, (1974) 3 SCR 207 all the 33 respondents in this case at the relevant time, as in the other case, were the employees of the Grainshop Establishment of the Railway Administration in this case the Southern Railway. After the closing of the grain shop establishment, all the respondents were allotted to South Central Railway with the formation of that zone. They belonged to either one or the other of the three categories of the different sources from which the staff for the temporary grain shop complex was drawn. In the case of Central Railway v. Siddhanti (supra) the employee had prayed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the railway authorities to fix the inner se seniority of the writ petitioners as per original proceedings dated October 16, 1952 of the Railway Board and not to give effect to the subsequent proceedings dated November 2, 1957 and January 13, 1961 of the Board issued by way of modifications and clarifications of its earlier proceedings of 1952. A learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Siddhanti's case (supra) had allowed the writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench. The decision of the High Court was affirmed by this Court with slight modification and it was held"that the discrimination envisaged in the impunged directions dated Nov. 2, 1957 and Jan, 13, 1961 excepting in so far as they pertain to personnel of category (i) is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
(2.) In the present case also the learned single Judge allowed the writ application and following the Bench decision of the High Court in Siddhanti's case, (supra) the writ appeal was dismissed in this case also.
(3.) We do not consider it necessary to narrate the facts of this case except in regard to a few respondents, as by and large, the facts are also identical to those in Siddhanti's case, (supra). The Judgement of the High Court is affirmed except to the extent indicated in the judgement of this Court in Siddhanti's case (supra) and subject to the clarifications made below.;