D.Basu, J. - (1.) The petitioner is admittedly a member of a Scheduled Caste and was appointed, as such, as a typist, on April 24, 1956, against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes and was confirmed, in Grade III, on the same basis on March 21, 1957 (scale of Rs. 110/- = 180/-).
(2.) The petitioner's grievance is that though in the Seniority List prepared by the Respondent Eastern Ry., in 1961 (Ann. A, p. 12 to the Petition), the Petitioner was given the 75th place, this was revised by the impugned order of 1963 (Annexure A. p. 13), by which the Petitioner was reduced, by giving him the serial number 194-A. As a result of this reduction in the seniority list, the Petitioner alleges, he has lust a chance of being promoted to the higher scale of Rs. 130/- -- 300/- (vide Annexure G), which he would have had if his 75th position had been retained.
(3.) Petitioner's case has been argued on the following points:-- (a) That the Circular No. 4960 (Ann. F) on the basis of which the reduction in seniority has been ordered, does not apply to the non-selection post of a typist; (b) That it cannot be given retrospective effect; (c) That it offends Article 16 of the Constitution. (a) The first contention of the Petitioner is not correct because para (ii) of the letter at Annexure F of August 2, 1962 lays down the principle to be followed in the matter of 'promotion to higher non-selection grades.' (b) The seniority of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the next non-selection grade has been revised by the application of the principle laid down in para, (ii) of Annexure F. The contention of the Petitioner is that it could not be given retrospective effect. But the concluding para of Annexure F makes it clear that while confirmations made prior to the issue of this circular should not be disturbed, the seniority position of existing staff should be 'recast' 'in the light of the instructions' contained in this circular. If so, Respondents have not given any retrospective effect not contemplated by the circular. (c) The strongest ground urged by Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the Petitioner is that of violation of the guarantee under Article 16 of the Constitution.;