G.M. LODHA, J. — These are six writ petitions filed by railway employees challenging the order dated 21 6 77 and 6th July, 1977 issued by the Western Railway By order dated 21-6-1977 provisional panel of Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters in the pay scale of Rs, 455-700 issued on 19-11-1976 was cancelled. 2. The petitioners and other persons who were included in that panel were reverted from the post of Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters from grade Rs 455-700 to the grade of Rs. 425-640, by order dated 6-7-77. Aggrieved from the cancellation of the panel and their reversion, all the six petitioners have filed these writ petitions on the ground that cancellation of the panel and their reversion were illegal. 3. It will be convenient to mention the facts leading to the above cancellation. All the petitioners are railway employees and are working in the Western Railway. All these petitioners were working as Asst. Station Masters/ Station Masters in the grade of Rs 425-640 in the year 1976. Certain posts of the Assistant Station Masters and Station Masters were upgraded in the year 1976 and selections were required to be made on 42 posts from amongst the Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters who were in the grade of Rs 425-640 On 27-8-1976, 162 persons were called for test and interview vide Annexure 2 and the petitioners happened to be amongst them. A Selection Committee was appointed and the selections were held on 19-11-76. Ultimately as a result of these selections a provisional panel for the promotions to the above 42 posts was made operative from 16-11-76 (Annexure 3) and the petitioners were included in this panel and were promoted as such. That as a result of this selection, the petitioners were put in the grade of Rs. 456-700 by order Annexure 4. That all these petitioners by virtue of the above promotion commenced working in the upgraded grade of Rs. 456-700 from 18-12-1976. After panel was approved, they were posted as such. 4. However, while they were working in the above grade of Rs. 455-700 on account of the selections made it came to them as a surprise that an order was passed on 21-6-1977 cancelling the above panel. This order dated 21-6-77 (Annexure 5) was passed by Divisional Superintendent, Establishment, Jaipur. After panel was approved, they were posted as such. 4. However, while they were working in the above grade of Rs. 455-700 on account of the selections made it came to them as a surprise that an order was passed on 21-6-1977 cancelling the above panel. This order dated 21-6-77 (Annexure 5) was passed by Divisional Superintendent, Establishment, Jaipur. As a follow up action of this order, another order was passed on 6-7-1977 by which the petitioners were reverted from the upgraded posts and the grades as mentioned above. 5. The respondent Railway in reply has filed Annexure R. 1 letter dated 9 6-77 addressed by Shri S.B. Lal to Mr. Narandra Singh, DPO, Jaipur in which the reasons for cancellation of the panel and review of the Selection Board proceedings have been given. This letter narrates two reasons only which are contained in para 2 and 3. The first reason given is that as there were 42 posts upgraded, only 96 persons should have been called, in addition to 21 schedule castes and 9 schedule tribes but instead of that 162 employees were called which was illegal, The second reason given was that senior employees having more than 60% marks in the record of service have not been selected on the ground that they got less marks in the professional ability test and their non selection was not justified. M/s Bhansali and Bafna appearing for the Western Railway tried to justify the order of cancellation of the panel and reversion on the above two grounds. Mr Bhansali also submitted that the Railway authorities have got ample powers under the Rules to cancel a panel and Rule 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual was cited in support of it. | Rule 216 (j), reads as under: "After the competent authority has accepted the recommendations of the 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 annoucement of the penal 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 the authority next higher than the one that approved the penal." 6. Relying upon the above rule, it was argued that since there were procedural irregularities in calling more than three times of the number of employees for interview and the marking as mentioned in Ex R. 1, railway authorities were competent and were also justified in cancelling the panel. 7. Mr. V.S. Dave on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the reasons given for cancellation of the panel are per se mis-conceived and untenable. According to the Railway Board circular, it is necessary that at the time of selection the Selection committee should, select 25%more of the vacancies in order to make provision for unforeseen contingencies. For this, Mr. Dave relied upon Annexure R. 6 at page 87. In this letter Mr. N. V. Somuel C P.O., Western Railway Bombay, has written to the various Divisional Superintendents of Western Railway to add 25% for unforeseen contingencies while forming the panels. The exect direction is as under: "In forming panels, it may please been ensured that panels are sufficiently long so that they do not get exhausted quickly. You may add 25% for unforeseen contigencies." 8. It is interesting to note that in letter dated 9-6-77 (Annexure R. 1), Shri S.B. Lal, S.P.O. (T) has written to the DP O. Jaipur that the fresh selections should be made keeping in view the instructions in the G.P.Os D.O. letter dated 10-8-76, precisely the same as mentioned above Ex. R. 6 This makes it clear that the railway authorities were required to add 25% of the number of vacancies and as there were 42 vacancies, number of 11 was to be added to it for making provision for unforeseen contingencies. In this view of the matter the number of candidates called being 162 was not more than 3 times and the first ground for cancelling the panel is absolutely untenable. 9. Mr. Bafna pointed out that this letter dated 9-6-77 is contrary to Ex. R.10 letter dated 3-9-76. It is not possible for this Court to enter into a research as to how many circulars and orders were issued by the Railway Board from time to time during the interval of these two letters. All that can be said is that the Western Railway cannot be allowed to disown its own act. Similarly the respondents cannot be allowed to rely, upon para 1 of the letter dated 9-6-77 (Ex. All that can be said is that the Western Railway cannot be allowed to disown its own act. Similarly the respondents cannot be allowed to rely, upon para 1 of the letter dated 9-6-77 (Ex. R1) and disown the reference of the letter dated 9-6-77. This would be a game of hide and seek and to play hot and cold together, a device to approbate and reprobate which cannot be permitted in a court of law when we are dealing with the valuable rights of the Government employees, enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The railway authorities should put their house in order and if they file the documents in court which are inconsistent and contradictory, they can do so at their own peril. The citizen cannot be allowed to suffer on that account. I am, therefore, of the view that the reason given for cancellation of panel in para No. 2 of the letter dated 9.6.77 is untenable both on facts and in law. 10. The second reason given in this letter dated 9-6-77 and relied upon by the learned counsel for the Railway authorities in this court that some seniors having mo:e than 60% in record of service were not selected and this justified cancellation of the panel, is equally untenable. I have perused the record of the Selection Committee as shown to me by Mr. Bafna. It is revealing that none of the employees who have been selected got less marks even in the matter of record of service than the persons who have not been selected A perusal of procedure given in Indian Railway Establishment Manual Clause 216(e) shows that out of 100 marks, only 15 marks were for record of service. Sub clause (e) of clause 216 reads as under:— "(e) Selection should be made primarily on the basis of overall merit, but for the guidance of Selection Boards the factors to be taken in into account and their relative weight are laid down below:— Maximum Marks Qualifying Marks. (i) Professional ability 50 30 (ii) Personality, address, leadership and academic/technical qulifications. 25 — (iii) Record of service. 25 — Note (1) The item "Record of service" should also take into consideration "Seniority" of the employees but no separate allotment of marks need be made on this account. (i) Professional ability 50 30 (ii) Personality, address, leadership and academic/technical qulifications. 25 — (iii) Record of service. 25 — Note (1) The item "Record of service" should also take into consideration "Seniority" of the employees but no separate allotment of marks need be made on this account. (2) Candidates must obtain a minimum of 30 marks in professional ability and 60% marks on the aggregate for being placed on the panel." The record of service and seniority both combined have got 30 marks and 50 marks are for professional ability and 20 for academic technical qualifications personality etc It is not without significance that this sub clause (e) expressly mentions that selection should be made primarily on the basis of overall merit. 11. It is not the case of the Railway department that selections should be made on the basis of seniority alone. As per rules overall merit is to be considered. The seniority having been given 15 marks only out of 100, the only legitimate conclusion to be drawn is that 85% marks are for merit devided into categories mentioned above. It is surprising that how Railway authorities could dare to sarap the panel, by using the powers under Rule 216(j) which never gives unfettered powers to the officers of the upper hierarchy than the Selection Board to supersede or cancel the selection made on the basis of merit as per requirement of clause (e) of rule 216. As it is undisputed that all the petitioners and other persons who were selected by the Selection Board obtained more marks than senior employees who could not be selected, their selection could not have been cancelled on such flimsy pretexts. 12. Having perused the record of the Selection Board, I am firmly of the opinion that the selection was made on the basis of a careful appraisal and assessment of the various employees including the petitioners. Both the grounds mentioned for superseding or cancelling the panel are grounds which appear to have been invested by the officers cancelling the panel, for accommodating some persons, who according to them, were entitled to promotion on account of mere seniority. This presumably introduces the elements of subjective consideration, in contradistinction to objective test in selection. A citizen placed in such a situation, is bound to think that such arbitrary and capricious actions boarders on the allegation of favouritism. 13. This presumably introduces the elements of subjective consideration, in contradistinction to objective test in selection. A citizen placed in such a situation, is bound to think that such arbitrary and capricious actions boarders on the allegation of favouritism. 13. When elaborate rules are available in the Railway Establishment Manual, and the Selection Boards, are statutory functionaries under those rules, senior officers and the Railway Board or any other high officer should not intermeddle in the statutory functioning of the Selection Boards, This is necessary to inspire confidence in the government employees, because when their service conditions are regulated by the law, in every step of their service career, they must work with the expectation that they would get their due in the matter of promotion and selection, strictly on the basis of merit The slightest departure from it and more so when it comes from Railway Board or Senior officers of the rank of General Manager, would create not only heart burning resulting in lack of enthusiasm and energy in the performance of their duties and indifference to their duties but would also harm the image of those who are at the balm of the affairs and who are supposed to inspire confidence amongst their subordinate employees. 14. The impugned orders in this case create an impression that the petitioners have not been given fair deal and the persons who are responsible for cancelling their panels and reverting them in spite of their better merit have tried to play with their service careers, a development which should cause serious concern to all those who believe and who are committed to rule of law. 15. All these writ petitions are, therefore, accepted. The impugned orders Annexure 5, 7 and 9 dated 21-6-77, 6-7-77 and 13-7-77 respectively are quashed to the extent they relate to the cancellation of the panel Annexure 3 and operated upon by Annexure 4 dated 18-12-76. The reversion of the petitioners from the upgraded post of Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters in the grade of Rs. 456-700 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners in this grade and allow them all their emoluments during the period of their reversion also. Any other consequential order passed by the Railway authorities in pursuance of the cancellation of the panel and reversion referred to above, also stands cancelled. 456-700 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners in this grade and allow them all their emoluments during the period of their reversion also. Any other consequential order passed by the Railway authorities in pursuance of the cancellation of the panel and reversion referred to above, also stands cancelled. The petitioners should be restored to their original states and grace in purseation of the selection which is being on held. Petitioners would also get costs from the respondents.