ORDER Lakshmi Prasad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner having been selected by the Railway Service Commission in the year 1959 joined as an Assistant Chemist in the Northern Railway. Subsequently the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chemical and Metallurgical Assistant and transferred to Lucknow where he joined the post on 1st January, 1962. In the year 1965 a post of Laboratory Superintendent for Diesel Shed, Moghalsarai came to be created with effect from 12th November, 1965. Awaiting selection by the Selection Board for that post which is admittedly a selection post, the Administration promoted Sri A.K. Dey as an Officiating Laboratory Superintendent even though he was junior to the petitioner. The petitioner made representations to the General Manager with the result that he was ultimately successful and was appointed Officiating Laboratory Superintendent as against the aforesaid newly created post resulting in the reversion of Sri A.K. Dey. Subsequently a selection Board was constituted for making selection fox the aforesaid post and in that connection among others the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 were called for interview. The result of that selection was announced on 12th May, 1967. The petitioner and opposite party No. 4 came to be impanelled as a result of the aforesaid selection. As appears from annexure 7 to the petition, the petitioner was placed senior to opposite party No. 4 in the panel. This petition is directed against the order oi reversion annexure 9 to the petition by which the post has been filled by opposite party No. 4 and the petitioner has been reverted to his substantive post as Chemical and Metallurgical Assistant. The petitioner challenges the said order of reversion on grounds more than one ana prays that the same be quashed and opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3, namely, the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, the Senior Personnel Officer II and the Divisional Superintendent be directed to promote the petitioner in preference to opposite party No. 4 in accordance with his position in the panel vis-a vis opposite party No. 4. 2. The petition is opposed by opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3. Opposite party No. 4 has not appeared to oppose the petition despite service of notice. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petition is opposed by opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3. Opposite party No. 4 has not appeared to oppose the petition despite service of notice. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the stand taken by the contesting opposite parties in paragraph 8 of their counter-affidavit for appointing opposite party No. 4 in preference to the petitioner to the post of Laboratory Superintendent even though on the panel the petitioner is senior to opposite party No. 4 is untenable for the reason that as there was a single vacancy in the year 1965 as a result of the creation of a new post it could not be treated as reserved whatever may be the position according to the points in the roster. The stand taken in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit is: "The petitioner was informed through CAM/ CB- LEO, vide G.M. (P) New Delhi's letter No..............dated 11.9.67 that the promotion of Sri Swam (Satya Prakash) party No. 4 as Lab. Supdt. grade Rs. 325-575 (AS) at NGS ordered vide..............notice no................ dated 22.7.67 was against the quota reserved for scheduled caste according to roster. The reversion of the petitioner as C & M Assistant Grade Rs. 210.425 (AS) was, therefore, in accordance with the rules in force. His contention that there being one vacancy, it should not be treated as reserved, is not tenable in terms of the instructions contained in Para. 2 of C. M. (P.) New Delhi's letter No.......... dated 24.5.63 which inter alia lays down that the promotion of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes employees against reserved vacancies is made according to the points in the roster etc., and for seniority and confirmation the panel position will be observed." A copy of the aforesaid instructions is filed as annexure "H to the counter affidavit. The stand taken in paragraph 8 of the counter, affidavit is countered by what is alleged in paragraph 7 of the rejoinder affidavit. The stand taken in paragraph 8 of the counter, affidavit is countered by what is alleged in paragraph 7 of the rejoinder affidavit. With regard to annexure H to the counter-affidavit it is sated in Para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit: "It is further stated that the instructions contained in Annexure II filed with the counter-affidavit relate to the subject of seniority of non-gazetted staff scheduled caste and S. Tribes employees vis-a-vis others as also to the "Maintenance of Rosters for giving effect to reservation provided for scheduled castes and S. Tribes." It is asserted that the instructions contained in Annexure H are inapplicable to the mode of filling up of selection posts which is the-subject.matter of the pleas raised in the writ, petition. It is further asserted that the instructions contained in Annexure H as to the maintenance of roster are no longer in force having been revised by serial No. 2400- circular No.............dated 8.2-64 and also- social No. 2420 circular of even number dated 3-8-64 in the light of the Supreme Court of Indias decision. True copies of the said circulars are being annexed as Annexures Nos. 2: and 3 to this rejoinder-affidavit." Annexure 3 to the rejoinder -affidavit deals with "Model roster for reservation of vacancies for scheduled caste and scheduled tribes revision in pursuance of the decision regarding "carry forward" of vacancies (vide Boards letter No.............dated 8-1-64 to Railways and dated 27.12-65 to attached offices)." The last paragraph on page 2 of Annexure 8 to the rejoinder-affidavit says : "It may also be noted that if there are-only two vacancies to be filled on a particular occasion, not more than one may be treated as reserved and if there be only one vacancy it should be treated unreserved. If, on this account, a reserved point is treated as unreserved, the reservation may be carried forward to the subsequent two recruitment years." This Annexure 3 is dated 3rd March, 1964 whereas Annexure H is dated 24th May, 1963. The fact that as a result of the newly created post in the year 1965 there occurred only one vacancy is not in controversy. The fact that as a result of the newly created post in the year 1965 there occurred only one vacancy is not in controversy. What has been urged by Sri N. Banerji appearing for the opposite-parties is that since; according to the roster, the first vacancy is to go to a scheduled caste candidate and the vacancy in question was a first vacancy, it was rightly given to opposite-party No. 4 who belonged to scheduled caste in preference to the petitioner who is senior in the panel to opposite party No. 4. I am unable to follow his contention that the particular vacancy was the first in the roster. There is nothing on the record to show that since after the new rules as contained in Annexure-3 to the rejoinder-affidavit came into force there arose no vacancy of Laboratory Superintendent's post till the vacancy in question occurred as a result of a newly created post in the year 1965. In the absence of any such material it is not open to the opposite parties to contend that the particular vacancy was the first vacancy. It may be that the vacancies in the earlier years were not filled up by a scheduled caste candidate because of non-availability. In that case it would be a case of carry over. Whether it was a case of carry over or a single vacancy, the position remains that in the event of there being only one vacancy, it cannot be treated as a reserved vacancy in any circumstance. In this connection my attention has been drawn to the note below R. 110, Chap. I, Section E of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Second Edition) which says: "If there are only two vacancies to be filled on a particular year of recruitment not more than one may be treated as reserved and if there be only one vacancy, it should be treated as unreserved. If on this account, a reserve point is treated as unreserved, the reservation may be carried forward to the subsequent two recruitment years." So there can be no manner of doubt that under the rules whenever there is a single vacancy to be filled, it has to be filled on the basis of an unreserved vacancy, even though otherwise it may have been, according to the point in the roster, a reserved vacancy. In that view of the matter, the stand taken by the opposite-parties in giving preference to opposite-party No. 4 to the petitioner notwithstanding his junior position in the panel cannot be accepted. It is not in controversy that, according to the position in the panel, the petitioner is entitled to promotion in preference to opposite-party No. 4. The sole ground on which the petition has been con. tested has failed as indicated above. So the petition must succeed. 4. In the end the petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order Annexure 9 is quashed.