JUDGMENT A.K. Kirty, J. - The appellants are Railway servants. Admittedly, a Selection Board was set up for selecting candidates for promotion to posts of Signal Inspectors in the Scale of Rs. 450-575. It is not disputed that the appellants were eligible persons for being considered for selection for the posts in question. The appellants along with a number of certain other Railway servants appeared at the examinations held by the Selection Board and also at personal interviews held by that Board. The selections for the posts took place between December 18, 1969, and December 7,1970. As a result of the selection proceedings, a panel of selected candidates dated 24.1.270/18-1-71 was published in the Railway gazette containing the names of the selected candidates. There is no dispute that the names of the appellants found place in that panel. Subsequently, the appellants were posted in officiating capacity to posts for which Selection was made by the Selection Board. The selection made by the Selection Board, under the relevant Railway rules was subject to approval by the Chief Signal and Tele Communication Engineer. There is no dispute either that the said authority approved the panel prepared by the Selection Board and that it was thereafter that the panel was published in the gazette. It appears that some complaints were made alleging that some irregularities had been committed by the Selection Board in preparing the panel of selected candidates. These complaints appear to have been made to the Railway Minister who in his turn referred the matter to the General Manager of the Railway concerned, namely, North Eastern Railway. The General manager called for a report from the Chief Signal, Tele Communication Engineer and cancelled the selection and the panel of the selected candidates. In pursuance of his order, a notification to that effect was issued on March 23,1971. This notification was challenged by the appellants by filling a petition in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This petition was opposed by the respondents. The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Against his judgement and order, the instant special appeal has been filed. 2. The impugned notification dated March 23,1971 purports to have been issued or caused to be issued by the General manager in exercise of power conferred on him by the newly-added Clause (J) to Paragraph 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Against his judgement and order, the instant special appeal has been filed. 2. The impugned notification dated March 23,1971 purports to have been issued or caused to be issued by the General manager in exercise of power conferred on him by the newly-added Clause (J) to Paragraph 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. The first question for determination is what is the power of General Manager under the aforesaid provision. Paragraph 216 (J) reads as follows:- "After the competent authority has accepted the recommendations of Selection Board, the names of the candidates selected will be notified to the candidates. A panel once approved should normally not be cancelled or amended. If after the formation and announcement of the panel with the approval of the competent authority it is found subsequently that there were procedural irregularities or other defects and it is considered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel, this should be done after obtaining the approval of authority next higher than the one that approved the panel." In the instant case, the parties are agreed that the next higher authority than the one which approved that panel is General Manager of the particular Railway. The aforesaid provision empowers the next higher authority to cancel or amend a panel approved by the competent authority. If it is discovered that there were procedural irregularities or other defects in the matter of selection of candidates by the Selection Board. Further, the panel can be cancelled or amended only if considered necessary. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellants as was done before the learned single Judge, that the General manager had no power to cancel or amend the panel prepared by the Selection Board and approved by the competent authority because there was neither any procedural irregularity nor was there any such defect in the matter of selection, as would entitle the General Manager to cancel or amend it. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no procedural irregularity. It has, however, been contended that there were defects which would come within the ambit of the expression 'other defect' under paragraph 216 (j). It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no procedural irregularity. It has, however, been contended that there were defects which would come within the ambit of the expression 'other defect' under paragraph 216 (j). On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellants contended that other defects in the context would mean defects similar or analogous to procedural irregularities, that is to say, the argument was that in construing the expression 'other defects' the rule of Ejusden Generis should be applied. We not propose to express our final or concluded opinion on this controversy. 3. In our view, the expression 'other defects' even if give a wide connotation would not confer on the higher authority power to cancel or amend a panel merely because he was personally of the view that the papers set by the Selection Board or the standard of giving marks to the examinees on examination of the answer books or at viva voice tests were very lenient. One of the explanations given on behalf of the General Manager in the counter-affidavit is that the papers which were set were too lenient. Another reason given is that one Shri M.L. Kanaujia who appeared in the selection examination and tests actually received more marks but less marks were shown against his name. Assuming that this allegation is correct, it might reasonably furnish a ground for suitably amending the panel but such a mistake obviously could not be made a ground for cancellation of the entire panel. Another ground mentioned is that one Shri N.N. Sharma whose name was included in the panel was not found suitable by another Selection Board in another selection for a different post. To our mind, this was wholly irrelevant to the question whether the panel prepared in the instant case should be cancelled or amended. It has not been alleged that Shri N.N. Sharma had not duly qualified at the written examination and the viva voice test held by the Selection Board. Besides, if individually some thing was wrong in regard to selection of Shri N.N. Sharma, that might again possibly furnish a reasonable ground to suitably amend the panel but not for the cancellation of the panel as a whole. Besides, if individually some thing was wrong in regard to selection of Shri N.N. Sharma, that might again possibly furnish a reasonable ground to suitably amend the panel but not for the cancellation of the panel as a whole. Even if the matter were to be examined in the light of explanation given on behalf of the General Manager, the impugned notification cannot be upheld because the General Manager, to our mind, acted upon considerations which were not relevant and which in any case had nothing to do with the present appellants or their selection. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents urged that the expression 'other defects' was wide and comprehensive enough to empower the higher authority without any restriction to cancel the panel if the higher authority was satisfied that the panel for some reasons which appealed to him deserved to be cancelled or amended. We are not prepared to accept a proposition so widely stated because if such a proposition were to be accepted, the consequence might be to vest the higher authority under paragraph 216 (j) with an absolute, uncontrolled and unrestricted power to cancel or amend any panel even though prepared by the Board of Selection in due course and approved by the competent authority. The question, however, need not be discussed further. 4. The learned Single Judge appear to have been greatly influenced by the fact that the panel which was prepared and approved was described as a panel containing the names of candidate selected provisionally. The relevant rules do not provide for preparing any such provisional panel as a whole or for all purposes. From the relevant rules, it appeals that for certain selection posts, the Railway servants who are otherwise eligible have a right to appear at examinations held by Selection Boards for selecting candidates for promotion to higher posts on selection. In the instant case, it is not denied that at the time of the examination or before holding the examination it was not intimated to the candidates that the examination would be held merely on a provisional basis. If this be the position, it appears to us that neither the Selection Board nor the competent authority would have any right to subsequently prepare a panel mentioning that the panel consists of the names of persons selected only provisionally. If this be the position, it appears to us that neither the Selection Board nor the competent authority would have any right to subsequently prepare a panel mentioning that the panel consists of the names of persons selected only provisionally. It is another matter that when panel is prepared, it may contain the names of some individuals included there in provisionally because of some special reasons. An example of such special reasons is indeed furnished by the materials on the record before us. It appears that one of the persons whose name was included in the panel had duly qualified but against him some disciplinary proceedings were going on and it was not possible to anticipate or prejudge what the ultimate result of those proceedings might be. In the circumstances, the name of that person was rightly included in the panel on provisional basis. 5. There is another reasons why, to our mind, the relevant rules cannot be held to permit normally and in ordinary course preparation of provisional lists i.e. panels which may at any time be cancelled or amended without showing any specific reason therefor. The Railway Establishment Manual itself contains paragraph 217. Clauses (a) and (b) thereof provide as follows:- (a) "Panel drawn by a Selection Board, and approved by the competent authority shall be current for two years from the date of approval by the competent authority or till these are exhausted whichever is earlier. (b) An employee who once officiated against a non-fortuitous vacancy in his turn on the panel shall not be required to appear again for fresh selection." Paragraph 217 above itself, to our mind, furnishes a good ground for holding that under Paragraph 216, no provisional list can be prepared once a selection is duly made by the Selection Board, because when a selection is made and the panel prepared is approved by the competent authority, rights to the persons selected and put on the panel accrue under Clause (a) and (b) of paragraph 217. Those rights may be of a limited character even so it is not possible to hold that paragraph 217 does not confer any right at all to persons who have been selected and whose names have been placed in the approved panel. Those rights may be of a limited character even so it is not possible to hold that paragraph 217 does not confer any right at all to persons who have been selected and whose names have been placed in the approved panel. If paragraph 217 did not or was not intended to afford any protection to or confer any right on the persons concerned and if by paragraph 216 (j) it was intended to confer an absolute and uncontrolled power on the higher authority than merely at the option of the higher authority, some persons could be required to appear at several successive selections by Selection Board by just cancelling or amending the panels prepared earlier. Obviously, it could never have been the intention of the authority which framed Paragraph 216 (j) to confer such unfettered power on the higher authority nor could it be said that Paragraph 217 was framed merely for purposes of embellishment and not for the purpose of affording some safe guard to or conferring some right on candidates who are declared to be successful at the selection examination and whose names are included in the panel as such. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the validity of the impugned notification dated 23rd March,1971 cannot be upheld. 6. In his attempt to show that the impugned notification was valid, learned counsel for the contesting respondents urged that in the absence of any specific bar to that effect, it would be open to the Selection Board as also to the competent authority to hold selection examinations provisionally, to prepare selection lists provisionally and to give approvals provisionally. We do not find any reasonable basis upon which such an argument can be accepted. If certain posts are selection posts and the procedure for recruitment to these posts is by selection from a lower cadre by Selection Boards constituted in that behalf then obviously that is a matter which directly concerns the right of these employees in the lower cadre who may be eligible for promotion on selection and therefore, it cannot be held that the Selection Board will have a right to make selections at its option either on a mere provisional basis or on a permanent or final basis. It is only, when for any extraordinary or special reason, a certain number of vacancies have to be filled on adhoc basis or as purely temporary measure that provisional selections can be made. Otherwise in the normal course, selection have got to be made with a view to promote eligible persons from the lower cadre who qualify for appointment to posts in the next higher cadre. We are unable to accept the contention that since there is no specific bar in the Railway Establishment Manual, the Selection Boards must be deemed to have power to make provisional Selections as and when they like. The learned counsel in support of his argument sought to derive support from certain observations made by the Supreme Court in Shitla Sahai Srivastava v. General Manager, N.E.R. Gorakhpur, AIR 1966 SC 119 . In that case, however, the entire panel was not a provisional one but in that panel the names of five persons were included on provisional basis. We have already stated above that in our opinion, the names of individual persons for any special or extraordinary reason may be included provisionally. Such reason is necessarily something personal to the particular person or persons. For such a reason or reasons, the other candidates against whom or in respect of whom no such reason exists cannot be treated equally and cannot be included in the panel merely on a provisional basis. There is nothing in the judgement of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case on the basis of which the impugned notification can be upheld. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further urged that as would appear from Annexure A-2 to the writ petition, the appellants were appointed in officiating capacity only. His argument was that if a person is appointed in an officiating capacity to a higher post then that person does not acquire any right to such post nor does he acquire any lien thereon. He further submitted that in such a case there is no question of any reduction in rank and if the person has been reverted to his substantive post, he is not entitled to complain that he has been illegally reverted. The question however, is not one of reduction in rank nor one of reversion. He further submitted that in such a case there is no question of any reduction in rank and if the person has been reverted to his substantive post, he is not entitled to complain that he has been illegally reverted. The question however, is not one of reduction in rank nor one of reversion. The question is whether in a selection duly made by the Selection Board, the successful candidates as a whole could be placed in the panel merely on provisional basis or necessarily in the absence of any special reason, the candidates had to be placed in the panel with a view to appointment to the higher posts as and when vacancies occurred in officiating capacity or permanent capacity as the case may be. The second question as already indicated above is whether the successful candidates whose names found place in the panel have any right under Paragraph 217 of the Manual and whether by the impugned notification such rights have been infringed. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it necessary discuss the ruling R.S. Sial v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1971 All 375 (FB) on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. For the reasons stated above, we allow the special appeal and set aside the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge. The impugned notification dated March 23, 1971, is quashed. The appellants will be entitled to their costs of this appeal.