JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Petitioners were regular Class-IV servants in the employment of the South Eastern Railway. They came to be promoted between 1970 and 1975 to the lowest grade of Class-III posts and each of these petitioners had put in continuous service for more than eighteen months in the promotional posts. According to the petitioners, these promotional were non-selection ones and promotion is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. At the time the petitioners were granted promotion, it was on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability and though the promotions were styled as ad hoc they were indeed regular ones. Opposite party no. 3 decided to make selection once again in respect of these posts and several other vacancies in similar posts that arose and required the petitioners to appear at written and viva voce tests despite their protest. Though petitioners were subjected to written test, they were not called for the viva voce test on the ground that they had failed to qualify in the written test. 62 other candidates were called to the viva voce examination. According to the petitioners all these 62 candidates were continuing in Class-IV and were junior to the petitioners. Petitioners came before this Court challenging the threatened reversion of their and by an interim order, the administration was restrained from disturbing the petitioners. Mr. Dora appearing on their behalf alleges that all other vacancies have been filled up on the basis of subsequent selection, but so far as the petitioners are concerned on account of the interim order from this Court, the position has not been disturbed. Mr. Dora appearing on their behalf alleges that all other vacancies have been filled up on the basis of subsequent selection, but so far as the petitioners are concerned on account of the interim order from this Court, the position has not been disturbed. Petitioners raise three contentions :- (i) The posts being non-selection ones, promotion granted on basis of seniority-cum-suitability should have been taken as final and there was no scope for disturbing these promotions on the basis of any fresh selection ; (ii) In view of the fact that each of the petitioners had continuously officiated for more than eighteen months in the promotional posts, there could be no reversion without complying with the procedure laid down under the disciplinary rules; and (iii) In view of a Circular of the Railway Board, petitioners should not have been called upon to take the written test, but should have been called to the viva voce examination only in case an examination was at all to be held for purposes of selection of the petitioners to be appointed to the promotional posts. 2. The Railway Administration has taken the stand that (a) a joint application by eight petitioners is not maintainable particularly when they are serving under different wings and are not similarly situated; (b) petitioners are liable to selection and having failed in the written examination, are not entitled to contend that the action of the Administration is bad; and (c) petitioners having taken the examination and failed are estopped from challenging that they were not required to take the examination. 3. Coming to the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ application, we find that the petitioners have raised a common question. Their cause of action is based upon a common question, namely though they were holding ad hoc appointments for more than eighteen months, they were required to sit at a written examination and had not been called to the viva voce test on the plea of having failed in the written examination. The opposite parties are common so far as each of the petitioners is concerned. Keeping the provisions of Order 1, Code of Civil Procedure in view, these petitioners could have maintained a suit against the opposite parties. Law is fairly settled by now that in such circumstances, a common application would be tenable. There is no force in the preliminary objection. 4. Keeping the provisions of Order 1, Code of Civil Procedure in view, these petitioners could have maintained a suit against the opposite parties. Law is fairly settled by now that in such circumstances, a common application would be tenable. There is no force in the preliminary objection. 4. There is no dispute that each of the petitioners has been holding the post to which he was promoted for more than two years by the date selection was undertaken. Petitioners, therefore, contend that without a disciplinary proceeding they should not have been reverted. Reliance is also placed on an Establishment Serial No. 47/76 dated 18-2-1976 (Annexure-2) running to the following effect :- "Panels should be formed for selection posts in time to avoid ad hoc promotions. Care should be taken to see while forming panels that employees who have been working in the posts on ad hoc basis quite satisfactorily are not declared unsuitable in the interview. In particular, any employee reaching the field of consideration should be saved from harassment. The Board desire that instructions should be issued to all concerned for strict compliance of the decision..." Petitioners have asserted that they had worked for a long period in the promotional posts and their work was satisfactory. They assertion has not been refuted in the counter affidavit. Mr. Pal appearing for the Railway Administration with a view to avoiding application of the Establishment Serial in question contended that statutory rules had been framed prescribing holding of written tests for selection and the decision under Annexure-2 could not override the same. There does not seem to be any force in this submission of Mr. Pal. Annexure-2 is an Establishment Serial and the position appears to be beyond dispute that the Railway Board is entitled to issue general directions with reference to its employees which would be taken as statutory. To that effect is the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Railway Board and others v. P.R. Subramaniyam and others AIR 1978 S.C. 284 . Mr. Pal's submission on the basis of a Single Judge decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jagdish Singh v. Union of India 1975 (2) S.L.R. 469, is not acceptable as the proposition runs counter to the ratio of the Supreme Court decision. Besides, on facts, the case is also distinguishable. Mr. Pal's submission on the basis of a Single Judge decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jagdish Singh v. Union of India 1975 (2) S.L.R. 469, is not acceptable as the proposition runs counter to the ratio of the Supreme Court decision. Besides, on facts, the case is also distinguishable. We are inclined to accept the position that under Annexure-2, the Board clearly decided that those who have been working on ad hoc basis satisfactorily should not be required to undertake a written examination and steps should be taken to see that they are not declared unsuitable in the interview i.e. the viva voce test. The persons who have been expanelled are junior to the petitioners. They were still in Class-IV while petitioners were for quite a long time working in the Class-III cadre. There can, therefore, be no dispute that the petitioners had reached the field of consideration and were squarely covered by the direction in Establishment Serial No. 47/76. In that view of the matter, there is considerable force in the submission of Mr. Dora for the petitioners that they should not have been forced to take the written examination and should have only been called to the viva voce test of the interview and that interview should have been carried keeping the spirit of Annexure-2 in view. 5. Several other contentions have been raised by Mr. Dora, but since petitioners are satisfied if they are given an opportunity of taking the viva voce examination, we are not inclined to examine the other contentions in the writ application. 6. This application has, therefore, to be allowed and a direction has to be issued to the opposite parties to call the petitioners to a viva voce examination and to have the same conducted in terms of Establishment Serial No. 47 of 1976. Until then petitioners must continue in their position as at present. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction, but without order for any costs. N.K. Das, J. - I agree. Final Result : Allowed