Judgment SURENDKA NARAIN JHA, J. 1. In this application, the petitioners, who are seven in number have prayed for quashing an order No. E/56/80 dated 24-7- 1980 contained in annexure 8 promoting respondent No. 11 to officiate as a ward- keeper, a copy of which is not annexed to the writ application, and order No. E/15/81 dated 17-3-1981 contained in annexure-10 and orders dated 30th March, 1981 and 21st April, 1981 to hold the suitability test for promotion as contained in annexures-11 and ll/l, respectively, appended to this application and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining respondents 1 to 4 from giving effect to the aforesaid office orders. By annexure-8, respondents 5 to 10 who were initially promoted on ad hoc basis during 1973-74, were treated as regular from the date of their promotion as wardkeepers. By Annexure-10, respondents 12 to 14 were promoted to officiate -as ward keepers in the scale of pay of Rs. 425/- to 600/- Annexures 11 and 11/1 contained orders issued by respondent No. 4 requiring petitioners 1 to 4 to appear in the suitability test for the purpose of regularising their temporary/ ad hoc promotion as ward keepers. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders on various grounds. 2. In order to appreciate the points raised in this application, it is necessary to state some relevant facts which are these : Petitioners I to 4 are working &sward keepers on ad hoc basis, and petitioners 5 to 7 were senior clerks at the time of filing of this writ application. The petitioners 1 to 7 were initially appointed as junior clerks in the Store Department of the North Frontier Railway on 4-12- 1958, 7-7-1958, 10-11-1958, 22-1-1959, 21-7-1961, 2-10-1963 and 3-8-1966, respectively. In the year 1963, the petitioners 1 to 3 passed the suitability test for regular promotion to the post of senior clerk and thereafter they were given promotion as senior clerk with effect from 1-10-1962. It is relevant to mention here that the initial recruitment to the Store Department under D. C. O.s/ A.C.O.s are made as junior clerks against direct recruitment and recruitment of material clerks are made after promotion from Class IV employees. The promotion to the rank of senior clerk and; Store Van Clerk are made on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability test from the aforesaid posts of junior clerks and material clerks. The promotion to the rank of senior clerk and; Store Van Clerk are made on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability test from the aforesaid posts of junior clerks and material clerks. Thereafter options are sought from the aforesaid senior clerks and store van clerks for their promotion in the office side (Ministerial) and Depot side (non-ministerial) according to the avenues of promotional channel. I have already stated, petitioners 1 to 3 were given promotion as senior clerk with effect from 1-10-1962. On 15-11-1965, the concerned authorities sought option from junior clerks of N. F. Railway (North Bank Unit) for filling up the post in Depot side (non-ministerial) and office side (Ministerial). Petitioners 1 to 3 opted for office side (ministerial). similarly in November. 1967, petitioners 4 tt 7 gave their option for promotion in the office side (ministerial). Thereafter they appeared at the suitability test in the year 1968 and passed the suitability test some time in November, 1968 and after that petitioners 4 to 7 were given regular Promotion as senior clerks in the office side (ministerial). Petitioners 4 and 7 started officiating as senior clerks with effect from 5-10-1966 and 12-8-1968 respectively and petitioners 5 and 6 started officiating with effect from 7-2-1969 and 1-12-1968 respectively. Here it is necessary to state that respondents 5 to 19 opted, for their promotion in Depot side (non-ministerial). 3. The Assistant Director Eastern Railway Board, on 22-9-1969 issued a circular laying down a channel of promotion for ministerial and non-ministerial staff in the Depot side, a copy of the said circular is Annexure 2 to this writ application. It appears that on 21-12- 1969, the petitioners who were senior staff and were willing to exercise option towards ward keeping side, submitted representations to respondent No. 3, District Controller of Stores, requesting him to allow them to submit option for promotion to non-ministerial side (ward keeping side). Copy of the representation is annexure-3 to this writ application. The grievance of the petitioners is that while their representations were still pending, respondents 5 to 7 were illegally and arbitrarily given ad hoc promotion to the rank of ward keeper with effect from 2-1-1973, respondent No. 8 with effect from 3-9-1973. Copy of the representation is annexure-3 to this writ application. The grievance of the petitioners is that while their representations were still pending, respondents 5 to 7 were illegally and arbitrarily given ad hoc promotion to the rank of ward keeper with effect from 2-1-1973, respondent No. 8 with effect from 3-9-1973. respondents 9 and 10 with effect from 20-10-1973, respondent No. 15 with effect from 21-1-1974, respondent No. 16 with effect from 1-12- 1974, respondent No. 17 with effect from 25-11-1974 and respondent No. 19 with effect from 16-12-1974 without considering the cases of the petitioners although they were senior to the said respondents. Petitioners filed representation against the aforesaid promotions. On 19-3-1976, another circular was issued laying down the channel of promotions of Store Department according to which seniority of senior clerks/ store van clerks was to be maintained combined as per the length of non-fortuitous service in the grade on. the department basis. A copy of the said circular is Annexure 4 to this application. From Annexure-4, it appears that the existing channel of promotion of staff both on office and Depot side was revised and it is mentioned in the circular that this revised avenue of promotional channel will take effect from 1-3- 1976 and all promotions from that date should be made in accordance with the revised A. V. C It is specifically mentioned in the said circular that the cases of staff already promoted as non-fortuitous measure after holding proper suitability/selection test prior to issue of this revised A-V. C should not be re-opened. For the sake of convenience, I will refer the first A. V. C as contained in Annexure -2 as 1969 Rule and the second revised circular as contained in Annexure-4 as 1976 Rule. It is stated that the petitioners from time to time, made representations to the proper authorities to allow them to exercise option for their promotion as ward keeper in the Depot side (non-ministerial), but no reply was ever received from the said authorities. From Note 2 of Annexure-4, it appears that senior persons in the combined seniority list were to be called upon to exer-. From Note 2 of Annexure-4, it appears that senior persons in the combined seniority list were to be called upon to exer-. cise their option for progressing either on the ministerial posts Or in the Depot side six months in advance of the anticipated vacancies to be occurred in future on either side and their future promotions would be made as per their option which will be treated as final on the basis of combined seniority list. The Controller of Stores (P.), N. F. Railway, Maligaon, respondent No. 2. issued a circular referring to Railway Boards decision dated 18-1-1974, specifically stating that further opportunity should be given to the senior-most personnel i.e.. senior clerks store van clerks at the time of vacancy in the higher grade of Head Clerk/ ward keeper. That circular is Annexure-5 to this writ application. 4. The case of the petitioners is that in spite of the above mentioned circulars, two separate seniority lists of Store Van Clerks as existing 0n 1-4-1978 and another of Senior Clerks as existing on 1-4-1978 were circulated on 27-9-1978. and 16-10-1978, respectively. It is important to note that on 29-11-1978, a combined seniority list of Senior Clerks and Store Van Clerks was circulated by respondent No. 4 i. e. Assistant Controller of Stores, N. F. Railway Katihar and options in duplicate were invited from some senior-most senior clerks for their promotions as ward keepers in which the names of petitioners l to 3 were also included. In the said combined seniority list (Annexure-7), petitioners 1 to 4 are senior to respondents Nos. 5 to 19. In response to the said invitation for option, petitioners 1 to 3 submitted their option for their promotion as ward keepers in the non-ministerial side. On 1-9-1979, petitioner No. 1 was promoted to officiate as ward keeper and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted to officiate as ward keepers on 20-9-1980. In the meantime, Annexure-8 was issued treating promotions of respondents 5 to 10 as regular ward keepers from the date of their ad hoc promotions in the said capacity in supersession of the legitimate claim of the petitioners who are senior to the said respondents inasmuch as none of them had passed the suitability test as required under Section 320 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as the Railway Manual). The petitioners filed representations against the discriminatory, illegal and arbitrary regularisation of promotion of respondents 5 to 10 as ward keepers. While the said representation was still pending, respondent No. 11 who was junior to petitioners 5 to 7 was also promoted to officiate as ward keeper. Similarly, respondents 12 to 14 were promoted to officiate as ward keepers vide Annexure-10 to this application without considering the case of the petitioners 5 to 7 who are senior to the aforesaid respondents 12 to 14. Further grievance of the petitioners in that on one hand, regular promotions of respondents Nos. 5 to 10 to the rank of ward keeper have been made without their passing the suitability test, on the other hand, an order has been issued by respondent No. 3 followed by another order issued by respondent No. 4 requiring petitioners 1 to 4 to appear at the suitability test purporting to regularise temporary/ad hoc promotions as ward keepers, 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there has been an utter violation of Rule 320 of the Railway Manual which provides that the promotions should be made on the basis of senjority-cum-suitability test. It was further contended that the orders contained in Annexures-8 and 10 are discriminatory, arbitrary and mala fide besides being violative of the principle of natural justice. It was also submitted that the impugned orders of promotions are in violation of the relevant circulars issued from time to time by the concerned authority as contained in Annexures 4 and 5 to this writ application. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. The stand taken by the Railway authorities respondents 1 to 4 as per counter-affidavit is that the office order contained in Annexure-8 has been in terms of confidential letter No. E/23Q/l6/(S)/2. dated 3-7- 1980, issued by the Controller of Stores (respondent No. 2) which has been approved by the General Manager, N. F. Railway. So far as the order contained in Annexure-10 is concerned, it has also been implemented fully. According to the counter-affidavit, the respondents 12 to 14 had been promoted as per revised A. V. C. seniority list and they were provisionally opted to Depot side only. So far as the order contained in Annexure-10 is concerned, it has also been implemented fully. According to the counter-affidavit, the respondents 12 to 14 had been promoted as per revised A. V. C. seniority list and they were provisionally opted to Depot side only. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that as per avenue of promotion (A. V. C) in vogue prior to 31-5-1978, the initial recruitments were made as Junior Clerks by way of direct recruitment and so far as the post of material clerks are concerned, the same were filled up bv departmental promotion. Thereafter, the junior clerks and material clerks were required to exercise their option for their next promotion either in the office side or in the Depot side. Tnus, on the basis of combined seniority of junior clerks and material clerks, one is promoted in the office side i. e. against the post of senior clerk and one is promoted in the Depot side i. e. against the post of store van clerk (S.V.C.). According to the present avenue of promotion, an option is given only to the senior clerks and Store van clerks for their promotions against the post of Head Clerk in the office side and against the post of Ward Keeper in the Depot side. The promotion to the post of Head Clerk is based upon the combined seniority of senior clerks/store van clerks, seniority being date of promotion to the post of senior clerk/store van clerk whereas the promotion to the post of ward keeper in Depot side is based upon the seniority at the initial appointment grade of junior clerks/material clerks. After this promotion, the avenues of promotion in two sides i.e. office side and Depot side are quite separate and distinct and are not combined at any stage. Thus, a person promoted to the post of Head Clerk may be promoted only against the post of a Chief Clerk and so on and he cannot claim his promotion in the Depot side. Similarly, a person promoted as ward keeper may be promoted to. the post of Assistant Store Keeper and then to Depot Store Keeper, but in no case he can claim his promotion in the office side. 7. Similarly, a person promoted as ward keeper may be promoted to. the post of Assistant Store Keeper and then to Depot Store Keeper, but in no case he can claim his promotion in the office side. 7. In order to appreciate the first point raised by the learned counsel, it is necessary to refer to.Rule 320 of the Railway Manual, which deals with seniority on promotion to non-selection posts. It lays down that promotion to non-selection post shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability, suitability being judged by the authorities who are competent to fill up the post by oral and/or written test or a departmental examination or a trade test as considered necessary and the record of service. There is an exception as well. The only exception to this would be in cases where for administrative convenience, the competent authority considers it necessary to appoint a railway servant other than the senior-most to officiate in a short term vacancy he can do it for a period not exceeding two months as a rule and maximum four months in any case. For such an act, the reasons should be recorded in writing by the authorities concerned. The rule also provides that this type of promotion will, however, not give any railway servant any advantage not otherwise due to him. If the promotion is fortuitous that will not give any weightage over other persons. But, however, according to the same rule, if a railway servant once promoted against a vacancy, which is non-fortuitous should be considered as senior in that grade to all others who are subsequently promoted. The suitability for promotion should be judged on the date of vacancy in the higher grade or as close to it as possible. It was vehemently contended that promotions of respondents 5 to 10 were in utter violation of Rule 320 of the Railway Manual, because these respondents never appeared at the seniority-cum-suitability test which is a must for promotion to the post of ward keepers. Respondents 11 to 14 also did not appear and pass the suitability test for promotion as required under Rule 320 of the Railway Manual. At the same time, respondent No. 11 is junior to the petitioners in the combined seniority list (Annexure-7)- 8. Respondents 11 to 14 also did not appear and pass the suitability test for promotion as required under Rule 320 of the Railway Manual. At the same time, respondent No. 11 is junior to the petitioners in the combined seniority list (Annexure-7)- 8. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondents 5 to 10- It has been stated in paragraph 9 of the said counter-affidavit that there has been no contravention of Rule 320 nor Annexures 8, 10, 11 and 11/1 are arbitrary or violative of the principle of natural justice. It has also been stated that the petitioners have not made out any case of discrimination nor could sustain their claim or challenge the order made in that direction. According to these respondents, circular dated 22nd September, 1969 (1969 Rule) is prospective and the petitioners had already exercised their right of option as junior clerks for either of the two avenues under memorandum E/4l/l/l/(S) dated 15-11-1965 (for short 1965 Rules). It is also stated in the counter- affidavit that the petitioners have made a wrong statement that 1969 Rule was applicable to these respondents. According to them, both the petitioners and these respondents were governed by the 1965 Rules under which both the parties had given their option and in exercise of that option they joined two different wings of the Store Department namely, ministerial and Depot sides. Therefore, in making the differentiation between the two sets of employees, it cannot be said that there has been any discrimination. They are based on reasonable classification on the basis of the nature of works and proper categorisation. The petitioners have already availed of the benefit of 1965 Rules retrospectively from 1-10- 1962 and now they cannot say that the railway administration had acted discriminately in promoting the respondents to the post of ward keeper without considering their cases. It was submitted on behalf of these respondents that no illegality has been done in the matter of ad hoc promotion of these respondents to the post of ward keeper in the Depot side. According to these respondents, the petitioners had no right to those posts and, therefore, they cannot challenge the promotions of these respondents were made on the basis of their seniority in the Depot side on the basis of the option exercised by them in 1965 according to 1965 Rules. According to these respondents, the petitioners had no right to those posts and, therefore, they cannot challenge the promotions of these respondents were made on the basis of their seniority in the Depot side on the basis of the option exercised by them in 1965 according to 1965 Rules. The petitioners having exercised their option for the ministerial side under 1965 Rules, should not have any grievance in the matter of promotion of these respondents. 9. I have examined Rule 320 of the Railway Manual. From a bare reading of this rule, it is manifest that promotion to non-selection post shall be made on the basis of seniorify-cum-suitability or by oral or written test or a departmental examination. The only exception made is that if the competent authority considers it necessary for administrative convenience, he can promote any railway servant other than the senior most for a short term not exceeding two months, but in no case for more than four months. For such promotion, the authority will have to record the reasons in writing. In the instant case, the respondents were, no doubt, given ad hoc promotion. Respondents 5 to 10 who were initially promoted on ad hoc basis as ward keepers during 1973-74, by virtue of Annexure 8 without appearing at any suitability test, were treated as regular from the date of their promotion as ward keepers. Similarly, respondent No. 11 was also promoted to officiate as ward keeper without having appeared at any suitability test. Similar is the case of respondents Nos. 12 to 14. From Annexure 10, it appears that respondent No. 12 officiating ward keeper was opted to adjust the cadre. Respondents Nos. 13 and 14 by same Annexure 10 were temporarily promoted to officiate as ward keepers subject to the passing of the suitability test as and when, arranged. It is also mentioned in the said Annexure 10 that the ad hoc temporary promotion of the staff concerned will not confer on them any claim of seniority and they may be replaced by the staff approved for the post and the staff passing the suitability test as and when available as the case may be. 10. It is also mentioned in the said Annexure 10 that the ad hoc temporary promotion of the staff concerned will not confer on them any claim of seniority and they may be replaced by the staff approved for the post and the staff passing the suitability test as and when available as the case may be. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the ad hoc promotion of the respondents on the post of ward keepers do not create any legal right in them for promotion on the regular basis ignoring the cases of the petitioners, who are also working as ward keepers on ad hoc basis without appearing at the suitability test. 11. It may be remembered that a combined seniority list (Annexure 7) of senior clerks and store van clerks was circulated by respondent No. 4 on 29-11-1978. In that list, petitioner No. 1 is serial No. (3, petitioner 2 is serial No. 6, petitioner No. 3 is serial No. 7, petitioner No. 4 is serial No. 10, petitioner No. 5 is serial No. 24, petitioner NO. 6 is serial No. 20, petitioner No. 7 is serial No. 22 whereas respondents 5 to 7 are serial Nos. 14 to 16, respondents Nos. 8 and 9 are serial Nos. 31 and 32, respondent No. In is serial No. 33, respondent No. 11 is serial No. 30, respondent No. 15 is serial No. 34, respondent No. 16 is serial No. 37, respondents Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are serial Nos. 38, 39 and 40, respectively. The names of respondents Nos. 12, 13 and 14 do not find place in that combined seniority list. This combined seniority list was, no doubt, prepared on the basis of the seniority of senior clerks/store van clerks who exercised their option for promotion either in the office side (ministerial) or in the Depot side (non-ministerial). This combined seniority list was also accepted by respondents Nos. 5 to 10.. They have stated in para 3 of their counter-affidavit that the list prepared and circulated on 29th November, 1978 was properly prepared and was in conformity with the rules and the circulars. This part of the statements made in para 18 of the writ petition has also not been denied by respondents 1 to 4 in their counter-affidavit. They have stated in para 3 of their counter-affidavit that the list prepared and circulated on 29th November, 1978 was properly prepared and was in conformity with the rules and the circulars. This part of the statements made in para 18 of the writ petition has also not been denied by respondents 1 to 4 in their counter-affidavit. It was, however, stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 that as the avenue of promotion was changed with effect from 1-6-1973 and, therefore, actions were taken in accordance with new provision governing, the field of further promotion. If that, would be the stand of the railway authorities, then, in my view, so far as the cases of petitioners 1 to 4 are concerned, their promotion as ward keepers may also be regularised at par witfe the cases of respondents 5 to 10, because the cases of respondents 5 to 10 stand on the same footing as the cases of petitioners 1 to 4 and certainly petitioners 1 to 4, as it appears from Annexure 7, are senior to respondents 5 to 10. It is the admitted position that petitioner No. 1 was promoted to officiate as ward keeper with effect from 1-9-1979 and petitioners 2 and 3 were promoted to officiate as ward keepers with effect from 20-9-1980. Petitioners 4 to 7 were given regular promotion as senior clerks in the office side after passing the suitability test in Nov., 1968 It is well settled that seniority is determined on the basis of inter se seniority in the lower rank. Promotions made as stop-gap arrangement or on ad hoc basis without considering the merit of the respective candidates does not confer any right to the post. It has to be followed by a proper decision on consideration of merit. 12. The question that requires to be considered is whether the promotion o! respondents 5 to 10, who were initially promoted on ad hoc basis during 1973-74. as regular from the date of their ad hoc: promotion without considering the cases of petitioners 1 to 4 can be said to be a valid promotion, in the light of Rule 320 of the Railway Manual. Mr. respondents 5 to 10, who were initially promoted on ad hoc basis during 1973-74. as regular from the date of their ad hoc: promotion without considering the cases of petitioners 1 to 4 can be said to be a valid promotion, in the light of Rule 320 of the Railway Manual. Mr. B. C. Ghose learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents 5 to 10, submitted that Rule 320 is not a rule, but only an administrative instruction which has not the force of Rule. Under Rule 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. i, the Railway Board have full powers, to make the rules of general application to non-gazetted railway servants under their control. In pursuance of the said power, the Railway Board framed rules which are incorporated in the Railway Manual. Chapter III of the Railway Manual deals with the rules relating to seniority of the non-gazetted railway servants. In the Railway Boayd v. P.R. Subramaniyam, AIR 1978 SC 284 ; (1978 Lab IC 169), the Supreme Court held that the Railway Board have been framing rules in exercise of the power under Rule 157 from time to time and they have been treated as rules having the force of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution pursuant to the delegated power to the Railway Board. Some times, there is an ad hoc arrangement due to exigency of a particular situation without considering the respective merits of all those who are eligible i. e. to say a stop-gap arrangement. Such a promotion is fortuitous and I have already indicated above, it does not confer any right of continuance even on the temporary basis. This type of arrangement may be upset when the final promotion is made on the basis of a rule framed for final promotion. The question for consideration is whether Rule 320 of the Railway Manual will apply in case of promotion to non-selection post. In my view, when the rule has been framed and when it has got a force of law. it must be followed in cases of promotion to non-selection posts. It has to be followed by a proper decision on consideration of merits. The administrative instructions issued from time to time by the railway administration cannot override the rules having the force of law framed by the Railway Board. it must be followed in cases of promotion to non-selection posts. It has to be followed by a proper decision on consideration of merits. The administrative instructions issued from time to time by the railway administration cannot override the rules having the force of law framed by the Railway Board. In my considered opinion, when combined seniority list (Annexure 7) has been accepted by the Railway Department as well as by respondents 5 to 10, in that ease there is no justification as to why the cases of the petitioners specially when petitioners 1 to 3 have already been promoted to officiate as ward keepers cannot be considered for the regular promotion for the post of ward keeper along with other respondents. 13. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners have no right to promotion as ward keepers which is not in the same avenue of promotion cannot be accepted in view of the combined seniority list (Annexure 7). If that would have been the position there would not have been a combined seniority list of senior clerks and the store van clerks. From circulation of a combined seniority list, it has been fully established that till 29-11- 1978, the avenue of promotion to the post of ward keepers was kept open for the persons belonging to both sides of the Store Department i. e. ministerial and non-ministerial. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the petitioners have no right to promotion as ward keepers. This contention does not fit in, because the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 were already promoted to officiate as ward keepers since 1979-80. In my view, the question as to whether respondents should be confirmed in the post without appearing at the suitability test as provided in Rule 320 of the Railway Manual must be answered in the negative. Before confirmation, Rule 32C must be followed. Respondents may be fit and suitable for the post, but they have to fulfil the . requirement as provided under Rule 320 of the Railway Manual. Before confirmation, Rule 32C must be followed. Respondents may be fit and suitable for the post, but they have to fulfil the . requirement as provided under Rule 320 of the Railway Manual. The further grievance of petitioners 1 to 3 is that they have been asked to appear at the suitability test along with respondent No. 14 without fail vide Annex, ll/l. In my view, when such a direction has been given to petitioners 1 to 3 along with respondent No. 14, there is no reason why- other respondents would not be directed to appear at the suitability test including respondents 5 to 10 whose services have been regularised with effect from the date of their initial promotion. 14. The second question to be examined is whether any discrimination has been made against the petitioners by comparing the cases of respondents 5 to 10 and some other respondents whose names find place in the combined seniority list. It is clear in the instant case that some of the respondents whose names even do not find place in the combined seniority list of 1978. they have also been promoted to work as ward keepers vide Annexure 10. The principle which was adopted in the case of respondents 5 to 10 was not adopted in the cases of the petitioners. It is well settled that if persons or class of persons who are equal (as maintained in Annexure 7) are treated as unequals without any reasonable ground that in my view is clearly a case of discrimination. I have already pointed out earlier that respondents 5 to 10 who were junior to the petitioners in the combined seniority list were confirmed as ward keepers with effect from then initial appointment but the petitioners 1 to 3 have been asked to appear at the suitability test as required under R. 320 of the Railway Manual. I do not find any justification for the same. As such, I am inclined to hold that discrimination has been made because no unified principle has been followed in the petitioners case. 15. I do not find any justification for the same. As such, I am inclined to hold that discrimination has been made because no unified principle has been followed in the petitioners case. 15. Having considered the question minutely, I am of the view that (a) respondents 1 to 4 must follow Rule 320 of the Railway Manual before any case of substantive promotion to the post of ward keepers is finalised after taking into consideration the seniority of all the persons eligible for the said promotion; (b) ad hoc temporary promotion on account of administrative exigency unrelated to the consideration of merit is not to be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning seniority or when the question of promotion is decided; (c) aforesaid rule is also applicable when non-substantive promotions are made substantive; (d) when substantive promotions are not made at the same time, a person who has been substantively promoted earlier in accordance with the said rule, would be reckoned senior to a person who has been substantively promoted at a later stage. 18. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed and Annexure 8 is quashed as well as Annexure 10 so far as it relates to the promotion of respondents 12 to 14 to officiate as ward keepers is concerned and Amiexures 11 and ll/l. Let a writ of mandamus issue restraining respondents 1 to 4 from giving effect to the aforesaid office orders as contained in Annexures 8 and 10 in so far as it relates to respondents 12 to 14 and from making regular promotion of respondents 11 to 19 to the post of ward keepers and further directing them to consider the cases of the petitioners along with all the respondents who are eligible for substantive promotion to the post of ward keepers on unified basis after observing Rule 320 of the Railway Manual. In. the circumstances of the case, there will be no ordtr as to costs. H.L.AGRAWAL, J. 19 I agree.