JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - All these four petitions relate to disputes about promotion from Class III (Technical) to Class II (Technical) posts in RDSO. These promotions are governed by various circulars of the Railway Board. They are incorporated in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and are amended from time to time by directions contained in circulars issued by the Board. It is not disputed that these provisions have the effect of statutory rules inasmuch as the Railway Board has been delegated by the President the power to make rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. 2. The four petitions relate to different specialities in the technical field Writ petition No. 994 of 1979 relates to Electrical Engineering Branch. Writ petition No. 998 of 1979 relates to Signals and Telecommunication Engineering Branch. Writ petition No. 1065 of 1979 relates to Civil Engineering Branch, while Writ petition No. 5292 of 1983 relates to the Mechanical Engineering Branch. However, as common questions of law and fact are involved, arguments in the four petitions were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose of the same through a common judgment. 3. Chapter II S. `A' of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Paras 201 to 207) deals with the procedure for promotion to the posts in question. Existing vacancies and vacancies anticipated to occur during the course of coming year are at first worked out. They are intimated to the Class III staff. Class III staff who are eligible and indicate their willingness to appear at the selection are then subjected to written examination consisting of three papers, besides viva voce. The Selection Board consists of four Heads of Departments including the Chief Personnel Officer (where such a post exists) and the Plead of the Department concerned. Only persons who are permanent in Class III posts are eligible and it is further required that they should have rendered a minimum of three years non-fortuitous service after reaching a particular stage. Irrespective of this condition, permanent staff who are in the possession of an Engineering Degree and have put in at least three years of service in Class III are also eligible. At the relevant time the maximum number of candidates who were to be subjected to test was six times the number of vacancies (existing and anticipated). 4. Irrespective of this condition, permanent staff who are in the possession of an Engineering Degree and have put in at least three years of service in Class III are also eligible. At the relevant time the maximum number of candidates who were to be subjected to test was six times the number of vacancies (existing and anticipated). 4. Out of 100 marks, 50 were allotted for professional ability, 25 for record of service and 25 for personality, address, leadership and academic/technical Qualifications. Professional ability is through a written test, while personality etc. are assessed at a viva voice test. 5. Para 206 provided that the panels drawn by the selection Board and approved by the General Manager shall be current till the next selection which should ordinarily be held after a year. This is what is printed in the Second Edition of the Manual published in 1968. However, it was undisputed before us that by a Circular dated 20-9-1966 issued by the Railway Board this provision was modified and it was laid down that a panel shall be current for a period of two years only. 6. The Selection Board after testing the candidates prepared a panel which contained names of the number of candidates securing highest marks up to the number of existing and anticipated vacancies. marks at the test were 60%. The names of other candidates who secured marks were also kept apart. They were treated as candidates who were successful at the test but could not find place in the panel because of the unavailability of vacancies. They were, according to the circulars then prevailing, given priority in order of seniority while making ad hoc promotions after the persons whose names were borne on the panel had been absorbed. Thus although the general rule for ad hoc promotion was that of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit, the same was relaxed in so far as persons who had successfully competed at the test but could not find place in the panel were concerned. This provision has also been recently amended on 22-7-1978. The Railway Board in its Circular of that date has now laid down that no such list of successful but unempaneled candidates need be maintained and that ad hoc promotions should be made only on the basis of the principle of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. 7. This provision has also been recently amended on 22-7-1978. The Railway Board in its Circular of that date has now laid down that no such list of successful but unempaneled candidates need be maintained and that ad hoc promotions should be made only on the basis of the principle of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. 7. The ratio of 1:6 has also been since amended by a circular dated 9-4-1978. It has now been provided that for one vacancy five persons can be examined, for two vacancies eight persons can be examined, for three vacancies ten persons can be examined, while for four or more vacancies the persons to be examined shall be three times the number of vacancies. 8. Para 205 (f) of the Manual laid down that "Once a panel is approved by the General Manager, no amendments should be made without the prior approval of the Railway Board." 9. The dispute in these petitions has arisen in this manner. Some selections took place in the year 1972. The number of vacancies notified at that time was the number of vacancies worked out according to the posts sanctioned in Class II cadre. Actually, however, even apart from those vacancies there were quite a number of Class I posts which though sanctioned, were not being filled for want of suitable qualified personnel. Accordingly a corresponding number of posts of Class I was being availed in Class II. In other words, if say five posts in Class I could not be filled for want of availability of suitable persons, then those posts were being "operated" in Class II. That is to say in Class II five posts extra were being filled although those five posts were actually sanctioned for Class I This arrangement was to continue until suitable persons were available for being appointed to Class I posts. Thereafter those posts would cease to be "operated" in Class II and would be retaken in Class I. These posts were not taken into account while arriving at the number of vacancies for which these selections were to be held. 10. Thus selections were held for a much lesser number of posts in Class II than were factually available if the posts of Class I which were being `operated' in Class II had also been taken into consideration. 10. Thus selections were held for a much lesser number of posts in Class II than were factually available if the posts of Class I which were being `operated' in Class II had also been taken into consideration. The result was that not only the persons whose names were brought on the panel were immediately absorbed, but quite a number of other Class III officers were given ad hoc promotions to Class II posts. This was done firstly from those Class III officers who had succeeded at the test, but could not find place in the panel and thereafter other Class III officers on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. 11. The petitioners in writ petition Nos. 994, 998 and 1065 of 1979 are those Class III officers who did not choose to compete at the test in 1972. They were willing to appear at subsequent test. The respondent officials (namely the respondent private parties or the respondents other than the Union of India Railway Board and the RDSO authorities) and those officials who did appear at the 1972 tests. They were not on the panel, but they did qualify or succeed at those tests. They were given ad hoc promotions on the basis of their success. Some of the petitioners were also thereafter given ad hoc promotions. 12. In 1973 another test was announced to be held. In the meantime, however. Writ petition No. 1920 of 1972 and Writ petition No. 522 of 1973 were filed in which the eligibility of those officers who had come to the RDSO by transfer from zonal railways to appear at the promotion test was Questioned. The preexisting RDSO officers raised the plea that officers coming to RDSO through transfer were not entitled to any seniority on the basis of their service in the zonal railways and that their service should count from the date of their transfer to RDSO. These petitions were dismissed on 1-8-1978 and it was held that such officers were entitled to retain their seniority which they had while serving in the zonal railways. Admittedly however, there was no stay order in these petitions against the holding of fresh examination. It is said that the actual holding of examination was delayed due to uncertainty on several counts. Admittedly however, there was no stay order in these petitions against the holding of fresh examination. It is said that the actual holding of examination was delayed due to uncertainty on several counts. Apart from this litigation about zonal railway officers, the railway administration was also working on new recruitment and promotion rules for RDSO. They have since been finalised on 16-6-1983. In the meantime the respondents who had already qualified in the year 1972 tests and were thereafter officiating on ad hoc basis in Class II posts made representations to the Railway Minister and to the Railway Board to the effect that they should not be asked to appear at another test after so many years and that their appointments should be made regular instead of ad hoc. This could only be done by enlargement of the original panel. On these representations the Railway, Board made inquiries from the Director General, RDSO, on 18-2-1978 asking him about the number of vacancies for which the selections were held, the results of those examinations, the number of ad hoc promotions made and the reasons for the delay in holding fresh selection. This was replied to by the Director General, RDSO on 12-7-1978 and it was pointed out that the number of Class I posts which were being `operated' in Class II had not been taken into, account in working out the vacancies. The delay in holding selection was explained by reference to the two writ petitions about zonal officers, the pendency of representations of the respondent officials and the of recruitment and promotion rules for the RDSO. It was also pointed out that the grading received by the successful candidates (namely the respondents) was in most cases "very goods." in a couple of cases the grading was "outstanding". While in one or two cases the grading was "good". The Railway Board on 11-3-78 decided not to enlarge the panels. After receipt of this decision of the Railway Board, the Director General, RDSO again represented to the Railway Board on 23-2-1979 pointing out inter alia, that in a similar situation in relation to the North-Eastern Railway promotions the Railway Board had acceded to the request for enlargement of panels. The Board was, accordingly, requested to reconsider the matter. Ultimately, on 30-3-1979 the Railway Board accepted the proposal and directed enlargement of panels in all the four branches. 13. The Board was, accordingly, requested to reconsider the matter. Ultimately, on 30-3-1979 the Railway Board accepted the proposal and directed enlargement of panels in all the four branches. 13. In the meantime, Writ petition No. 998 of 1979 was filed with a or ever for a writ of mandamus to the RDSO and the Railway Board for holding a fresh selection. This writ petition was entitled "Kewal Singh v. Union of India" This was allowed on 10-4-1979 and a mandamus was issued to the authorities to hold a fresh selection. It is to be noted that the decision of the Railway Board dated 30-3-1979 referred to above was not received by the RDSO till then and accordingly, it was also not brought to the notice of the court. Inadvertently moreover, para 217 of the Manual was referred to in that decision instead of para 206. Actually, para 217 related to a different class of posts. However, this mistake did not make any substantial difference to the result, because, as already noted even para 206 had come to be modified by the Railway Boards circular dated 20-9-1966 to provide that a panel would remain in force for two years. 14. As a result of the enlargement of the panel by order of the Railway Board dated 30-3-1979 the respondent officials would have been absorved on a regular basis in Class II posts and the character of their appointment would have become regular instead of ad hoc. Thereupon they would also, have become eligible for promotion to Class I posts over the heads of the petitioners who would have continued to remain either in Class III posts or as the case may be and ad hoc basis in Class II. Stay orders were, however, passed in Writ Petns. Nos. 994, 998 and 1065 of 1979 whereby it was directed that the respondent officials would continue to be treated as promoted in an ad hoc capacity till the decision of these writ petitions. 15. The grievance of the petitioners is that some of them are senior to some of the respondent officials in Class III. The effect of enlargement of panels would be that the respondent officials would steal a march over the petitioner in Class II and thereafter, on ad hoc basis, in Class I as well. 15. The grievance of the petitioners is that some of them are senior to some of the respondent officials in Class III. The effect of enlargement of panels would be that the respondent officials would steal a march over the petitioner in Class II and thereafter, on ad hoc basis, in Class I as well. Their contention is that the petitioners were justified in choosing not to appear at the 1972 tests because considering the small number of vacancies notified they felt that they did not stand much of a chance of emplement as there were several persons senior to them who could be expected to be empanelled. The petitioners cannot therefore, be penalised for not appearing at those by being permanently made junior to the respondent officials who did appear and were successful at the test. The amendment in the panels could not be made after the expiry of the normal life of the panels, i.e. after two years. If an amendment in the panels could be permitted after six or seven years it could also be permitted after twenty years and this would be highly unreasonable and destructive of the right, to equality of opportunity guaranteed to the petitioners by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They have in this connection relied on the decision in State of U.P. v. Ram Gopal Shukla, AIR 1981 SC 1041 . On behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, reliance has been placed on Shitla Sahai v. General Manager, North Eastern Rly, AIR 1966 SC 1197 , and Sham Sunder v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 212 : (1969 Lab IC 319) which followed the former. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have given careful thought to their respective contentions. Para 205 (f) merely says "once a panel is approved by the General Manager, no amendments should be made without the prior approval of the Railway Board. It does not speak of any limitation of time. But some limitation of time must be inherent in the very nature of things. It would perhaps be inconceivable for a panel to be enlarged after a succeeding selection had already been held and a fresh panel prepared. Such is however, not the case here. As noted earlier, the enlargement in the panel was ordered before the next selection could be held. It would perhaps be inconceivable for a panel to be enlarged after a succeeding selection had already been held and a fresh panel prepared. Such is however, not the case here. As noted earlier, the enlargement in the panel was ordered before the next selection could be held. It is true that in the special circumstances of the case the holding of the next selection was inordinately. But can this delay by itself take away the power of the Railway Board to enlarge the panel. I7. Para 205 (f) does not speak of reduction or enlargement. It sneaks only of "amendment". However, in the two decisions namely, Shitffi Sahai and Sham Sunder, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld deletion of names from the panel. Such deletion of names has been held to be covered by the power to amend the panel. In other words, the expression "amendment" should cover any amendment in the number of persons on the panel. If the number of persons can be reduced under para 205 (f) by the Railway Board, there is no valid reason why the same cannot be increased too. Increase, like reduction, effects an amendment in number borne on the panel. 18. It has been contended that increase in the number of persons that a larger number of persons should have been allowed to compete at the tests because of the 1: 6 ratio. By not announcing the correct number of vacancies many others were deprived of the opportunity to. For instance, in Writ Petition No. 994 of 1979 only two vacancies had been declared in 1972 while the panel has now been enlarged to six. It has been contended that while only 12 persons appeared at the test as many as 36 should have been allowed to appear. Thus 24 persons were deprived of the on opportunity of appearing. It is, however, significant that none of those 24 persons has come forward to challenge the order of amendment of the panel. It is only those persons who were within the field of eligibility according to the number of posts declared that have come forward to challenge the amendment order. It is, however, significant that none of those 24 persons has come forward to challenge the order of amendment of the panel. It is only those persons who were within the field of eligibility according to the number of posts declared that have come forward to challenge the amendment order. It is only in Writ Petition No. 5292 of 1983 that was filed about four years after the impugned order that a belated application was given by some persons lower down who could possibly have competed if the correct number of vacancies were notified originally. The writ petition itself was highly belated and even when the same was instituted those persons lower down had not joined in it. It was only subsequently as an after thought that others came forward. We have, accordingly, rejected their application for impleadent on 9-4-1984. In Writ Petition No. 1065 of 1979 the petitioner was at serial No. 42 in the graduation list. Only six vacancies had been announced originally. while after enlargement the number of vacancies was increased to 12. It was contended during arguments that the petitioner could not come within the first 36. The fallacy in this reasoning, however, was that not all the 36 were bound to compete. Several of them may have opted out and we cannot say that the number of persons who were able to compete did not reach serial No. 42 in the gradation list or beyond. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded not that he could to any averment in the writ petition to the effect that this petitioner fell outside the field of eligibility. 19. Thus the petitioners are those Class III officers who deliberately and voluntarily omitted to compete at the 1972 tests. We say this about Writ Petitions Nos. 994, 998 and 1065 of 1979. The position is worse in regard to the petitioners in Writ petition No. 5292 of 1983. Apart from this petition being highly belated, as noted earlier, the petitioner No. 2 of this petition had actually appeared and filed, petitioners 1 and 4 of this petition had intimated their willingness but ultimately failed to appear, while petitioner No. 3 was not eligible at all inasmuch as he was not till then permanent in Class III and as such even if a larger number of vacancies had been notified he could not have had any right to appear. 20. 20. The excuse that the petitioners considered it futile to appear at the tests of 1972 because of the limited number of vacancies which were then notified is also rather weak. We have seen above that under the instructions then in force, a person who was successful at the tests, even though not empanelled, had a preferential right to be promoted in ad hoc capacity. Thus by not appearing at the tests even though the petitioners were aware that persons junior to them were appearing or were likely to appear at the tests and could thus steal a march over them, at least in the matter of ad hoc promotions, the petitioners confessed their own diffidence to compete with the respondent officials who were junior to them. How then can it be said that the petitioners were being deprived of the right to equality of opportunity. We have seen that quite a number of Class I posts were being de facto operated at that time in Class II. No rule or circular laying down any definition of the expression "vacancy" could be pointed out to us on either side. We are, therefore, not in a position to say that the posts which were so available in Class II at that time for being filled in could not validly be treated as vacancies of course those posts may now be retaken in Class I as soon as officers of the requisite experience are available. But the fact remains that they were from 1972 till now available for being filled in According to the dictionary meaning, the expression "vacancy" means "unoccupied post vide Concise Oxford Dictionary. The fact that the posts were vacant is borne out by the circumstance that Class III officers were soon thereafter actually appointed thereto on ad hoc basis. Thus if the vacancies were not correctly worked out it was certainly open to the Railway Board to make the corrections. The pendency of representations of the respondent officials for a long period or the initial rejection of those representations, by the Railway Board could not take away the power of the Railway Board to reconsider the matter afresh and to grant relief to respondent officials as recommended by Director-General RDSO. 21. The decision in State of U.P. v. Ram Gopal Shukla ( AIR 1981 SC 1041 ) (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. 21. The decision in State of U.P. v. Ram Gopal Shukla ( AIR 1981 SC 1041 ) (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case a list B of as many as 300 officials was prepared and it was laid down that no fresh examination would be held until that list was exhausted. It could have taken 24 years to exhaust that list. This would have implied that persons who qualified subsequently over such a long period for competing for promotion would have remained deprived of their chances. Such is not the case here. Here only the number of vacancies which actually existed and which were, in fact soon, thereafter filled by ad hoc promotion of the respondents and some petitioners are being taken into account. A fresh selection will be held for the other vacancies. The petitioners will, no doubt, be the sufferers, but they themselves by their diffidence or indolence have contributed to this unfortunate result. They cannot reasonably blame the railway administration for the same. 22. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision of the Railway Board, in the special circumstances of the case, to amend the panels in the manner effected cannot be said to be bad in law or beyond their powers or violative of the guarantee of equality. 23. We thus find no force in the writ petitions which are hereby dismissed. The stay orders shall stand discharged. No order is made as to costs. PER COURT:- 24. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced Sri R. N. Trivedi. learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions 994 of 1979, 998 of 1979 and 1065 of 1979 and Sri S. N. Shukla. learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ petition No. 5292 of 1983 made an oral over for certificate under Article 133, read with Article 134A of the Constitution. We are not satisfied that the case involves any substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such the certificate prayed for is refused.