JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The three petitioners, namely, S. D. Sharma, M. V. Johnoy and P. N. Tandon are aggrieved by the order dated 1-9-78, Annexure-1, by which opposite-parties 4 to 6 have also been brought on the panel prepared in August/December, 1975 for making promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the North Eastern Railway. The dispute in the petition has arisen in the manner hereinafter stated. 2. In August/December, 1975, a selection was held for preparing panel for making promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer. The panel was to comprise of sixteen, three and two candidates belonging respectively to the general, scheduled caste and scheduled tribes categories. Circular letter for holding the test was issued on 17-7-1975. To this circular letter was enclosed a list of 96 senior most persons eligible in the general category, senior most persons eligible in the scheduled caste category and one in scheduled tribes category. Although the penal was required to contain names of two candidates belonging to the scheduled tribes category, the list contained the name of one candidate. From this it appears that requisite number of eligible scheduled tribes candidates were not available. At this selection the petitioners appeared as well as opposite-parties 4 to 6. The panel that was declared on the basis of this selection did not contain the names of either the petitioners or the opposite-parties 4 to 6. No candidate belonging to the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes was found fit to be brought on the panel. Accordingly the reserved vacancies remained united. In the year 197o a fresh panel was drawn up after selection. At this selection again the petitioners as well as opposite-parties 5 and 6 appeared. Opposite-party No. 4 though called at the test did not appear. Opposite-party No. 6 was found to be unfit and his .name was, therefore, not brought on the panel. Opposite-party No. 5 qualified and was placed at Serial No. 18. Petitioners also qualified and were placed at Serial Nos. 12,14 and 19. By the impugned order dated 31-8-1987/1-9-1978 opposite-parties 4 to 6 have been brought on panel that was declared in the year 1975. Their names have been brought on the panel after deserving three of the reserved vacancies. Opposite-party No. 5 qualified and was placed at Serial No. 18. Petitioners also qualified and were placed at Serial Nos. 12,14 and 19. By the impugned order dated 31-8-1987/1-9-1978 opposite-parties 4 to 6 have been brought on panel that was declared in the year 1975. Their names have been brought on the panel after deserving three of the reserved vacancies. The consequence of this order is that opposite-parties 4 to 6 will get promotion against the vacancies declared in the year 1975 while the petitioners will get promotion against the vacancies declared in the year 1976. The petitioners grievance is that they would become junior to opposite-parties 4 to 6. It is also their case that if the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes vacancies had to be deserved the panel drawn in the year 1975 could not be amended and the dereserved vacancies could be filed up only by carrying forward the vacancies to the next selection. 3. The writ petition has been opposed on behalf of the Railway Administration as well as on behalf of opposite-parties 4 to 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Railway Administration it has been stated that the impugned order has been issued in according with the Railway Boards circular dated 31-8-74 which prescribes the procedure for dereserving the reserved vacancies and impanelment as a consequence thereof Para of Annexure A-l reads as under : - "The matter has been further considered by the Board and it has been decided that if, during the selection proceedings it is found that the requisite number of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes candidates are not available for being placed on the Panel inspite of the various relaxations, already granted, the best among them i.e., who secured the highest marks should be earmarked for being placed on the panel to the extent vacancies have been reserved in their favour. The panel excluding the names of such persons may also be declared provisionally. thereafter the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes candidates who have been so earmarked may be promoted ad hoc for a period of six months against the vacancies reserved for them. During the said six months period the administration should give them all facilities for improving their knowledge and coming up to the requisite standard, if necessary by organising special coaching classes. During the said six months period the administration should give them all facilities for improving their knowledge and coming up to the requisite standard, if necessary by organising special coaching classes. At the end of the six months period a special report should be obtained on the working of these candidates and the case put-up by the Department concerned to the General Manager through S. P. O. (RP) for a review. The continuance of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates in the higher grades would depend upon this review. If the candidates are found to have come upto the requisite standards, their names would be included in the panel and the same finalised, otherwise their names should not be included in the Panel and the vacancies deserved and filled in the usual manner by candidates from other communities." 4. In Para 8 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Railway Administration it has been slated that the panel declared in the year 1975 was provisional and the Committee of Selection consisting of 4 Heads of Departments opined that none of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribes candidates was fit to be empanelled. In accordingly recommended that three out of five vacancies pertaining to them be got deserved and the opposite-parties 4 to 6 be placed on the panel. The recommendation was accepted and opposites-parties 4 to 6 were empanelled in the Panel of 1975. From the averments made in the counter affidavit it is clear that it was "during the selection proceedings" that it was "found that the requisite number of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes candidates" were not available "for being placed on the panel", and therefore the process of de-reservation was started. On these facts the panel declared in 1975 cannot be said to be final. The opposite-parties plea that the said panel was provisional is fully borne out from the material on record. In these circumstances, as provided by the order contained in Annexure A-l, the panel could be finalised by inclusion of the names of opposite parties 4 to 6. It may be pointed out that it is not the case of the petitioners that at the selection of 1975 they had obtained higher marks than opposite-parties 4 to 6. 5. In these circumstances, as provided by the order contained in Annexure A-l, the panel could be finalised by inclusion of the names of opposite parties 4 to 6. It may be pointed out that it is not the case of the petitioners that at the selection of 1975 they had obtained higher marks than opposite-parties 4 to 6. 5. Sri B. C. Sexena, learned Counsel tor the petitioners, however, submits that the panel declared in year 1975 could not be said to be provisional and the impugned action could not be said to have been taken "during the selection proceedings." We are unable to accept the submission as we do not find any reason to disbelieve the facts stated in Paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit. From these facts it is apparent that the panel declared in the year 1975 was provisional and the process for empanelment of opposite-parties 4 to 6 was started "during the selection proceedings" within the contemplation of Paragraph 2 of Annexure A-l. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to argue that the procedure prescribed for de-reservation was not followed and therefore the impugned addition to the panel was illegal. According to the learned Counsel in terms of Annexure A-l candidates belonging to the reserved category who failed to find place in the panel of 19/5 had to be promoted on ad hoc basis for six months and their performance had to be watched and if their performance was found to be satisfactory, they had to be placed on the panel and the question of reservation could arise only if they failed to come up to the requisite standard during the said period of six months. The learned Counsel submits that candidates belonging to the reserved categories were not given this ad hoc appointment. For this argument no factual basis has been created either in the Writ Petition or in the rejoinder-affidavit. There is no statement of fact that the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes candidates who failed to qualify were not given ad hoc appointment. The learned Counsel relied upon Para 12 of the rejoinder-affidavit to support his plea that factual averments is there. There is no statement of fact that the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes candidates who failed to qualify were not given ad hoc appointment. The learned Counsel relied upon Para 12 of the rejoinder-affidavit to support his plea that factual averments is there. In this paragraph all that has been said is in these terms "Action for dereservation of the unfilled vacancies could only have been taken after complying with the pre-requisite conditions laid down in Annexure A-l and thus even if a decision to deserve could be taken, the general vacancies in the selection that may be held after the year 1976". This statement is too vague to be relied support of the submission. Further this plea may be available to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates who are not given this ad hoc appointment but it cannot be availed of by a candidate belonging to the general category. 7. Sri B. C Saxena further submitted that if the impugned order is to be maintained the ratio in which the candidates were required to be called at the selection would be disturbed. Learned Counsel pointed out that for each vacancy six candidates were to be called at the selection and it was for this reason that only 96 candidates belonging to the general category were called, as the total number of vacancies available in the general category was 16. According to the learned Counsel if the three dereserved vacancies are added to the original number of vacancies in the general category, the number of vacancies would increase to 19 and for those 19 vacancies 114 candidates were required to be called at the selection, which was not done. The argument, even if valid, may be available to those candidates who were not called at the Selection but it is not available to the petitioners who were called at the selection and who thus got a fair opportunity to compete against opposite-parties 4 to 6. At this selection opposite-parties 4 to 6 obtained higher marks than the petitioners and therefore became entitled to empanelment against the dereserved, vacancies. The procedure adopted for the empanelment of opposite-parties 4 to 6 is in accord with that prescribed in Annexure A-l whose validity the petitioners do not challenge. 8. It was also strongly contended by Sri B. C. Saxena that after dereservation, vacancies could be filled-up only in the usual manner. The procedure adopted for the empanelment of opposite-parties 4 to 6 is in accord with that prescribed in Annexure A-l whose validity the petitioners do not challenge. 8. It was also strongly contended by Sri B. C. Saxena that after dereservation, vacancies could be filled-up only in the usual manner. According to the learned Counsel the term "usual manner a used in Annexure A-l means the manner prescribed for empanelment of candidates belonging to general category. The learned Counsel stretches the argument further and submits that the only method by which the dereserved vacancies could be filled up by general category candidate was to add-up those vacancies to the vacancies for which the next selection is held. This argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the order contained in Annexure A-l treats the panel declared before dereservation as Provisional. The said order does not prescribed the rule of carrying forward of the vacancies. It prescribes the rule of finalisation of a provisional panel. With reference to Rules 201 to 207 contained in Chapter-!! of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, the learned Counsel submits that opposite-parties 4 to 6 could not be treated to have been selected for appointment to the post. For the same proposition he relied also upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in S. G. Gupta v. Union of India, 1978 (I) SLR 53. The Rules merely lay down the procedure for making promotion of non-gazetted Class III staff to Class II posts. The post of Assistant Engineer is Class If post. The Rules contemplated drawing up of a panel. These Rules have to be read along with the order contained in Annexe A-l which also, admittedly, has the force of law. Once the panel has been finalised in accordance with Rules 201-207 read with the order contained in Annexure A-l, it cannot be said that those whose names did not find place in the provision panel and whose names were added subsequently after dereservation of certain vacancies, were not selected for appointment. Once their names are include d in the panel, they stand at par with those whose names had been entered in the panel at the initial stage. Once their names are include d in the panel, they stand at par with those whose names had been entered in the panel at the initial stage. The order contained in Annexure A-l did not come-up for consideration before the Delhi High Court and therefore the reliance placed by the petitioners learned Counsel on the S. C. Gupta's case (supra) is misconceived. 9. It was next submitted that the effect of the impugned order is that the number of vacancies notified is altered. The submission is misconceived inasmuch as total number of vacancies in inspect of which the select list was to be prepared has not been altered. Within that number certain reserved vacancies have become available to the general candidates. The empanelment of opposite-party No. 4 was challenged also on the ground that he filed writ petition against the exclusion of his name from the panel declared in the year 1975, but the same was dismissed. Until the vacancies were dereserved he could not claim inclusion of his name in the panel of 1975. Therefore on account of the reaction of the Writ Petition, the right that has accrued to opposite-party No. 4 under the impugned order cannot be denied to him. 10. In view of the above the petition fails and is dismissed, there will be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, is discharged.