JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - Plaintiff-appellant joined the Railways in 1946 and in due course became a Fitter. It is alleged that after his selection he was made Train Examiner on 7-6-1959 and continued to work as such for more than 18 months. Relying upon Railway Board Circular dated 21-5-1956 and some other subsequent circulars, the plaintiff claimed that after continuous officiation as Train Examiner for more than 18 months, he had become entitled to the said post and could not be reverted despite his failure not to pass the tests for undergoing training as a Train Examiner. It is alleged that the Railway is trying to illegally revert him to the post of a fitter. 2. The defence was that plaintiff had never been selected for the post of Train Examiner and due to some vacancy he was given an officiating chance to work as Train Examiner purely on an ad hoc basis only as a stop-gap arrangement. Subsequently when trained hands became available the plaintiff was asked to go back to his original position without any stigma being attached. This did not amount to reversion by way of punishment and he had no claim to the post. 3. The trial court decreed the suit but on appeal it was reversed and the suit was dismissed. This is how the plaintiff has come in Second Appeal in this Court. 4. It is now the consistent, view of this court that various circulars issued by the General Manager of a Railway amount to rules having statutory force. Even if these circulars were regarded as mere administrative instructions, these would still be binding on the Railway Administration. The question, however, remains as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to any benefit from the circulars in question. It is contended by the appellant that if the officiating character was due to empanelment or selection of the employee then it is a prescriptive right granted by the circulars and he cannot be reverted after having served for more than 18 months in the said position without resorting to disciplinary proceedings. 5. The basic question, therefore, that comes up for consideration is whether in the present case the plaintiff had been placed on a panel or had been selected to officiate as a Train Examiner. The plaintiff has not claimed that he was placed on the panel. 5. The basic question, therefore, that comes up for consideration is whether in the present case the plaintiff had been placed on a panel or had been selected to officiate as a Train Examiner. The plaintiff has not claimed that he was placed on the panel. W hat he has alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint is that he was selected for the post of Train Examiner in the scale of Rs. 180-240 due to his seniority, suitability and qualifying test. It is urged that this allegation of the plaintiff had not been specifically denied by the defendant and, therefore is should be deemed to be admitted. It would be seen that in reply to paragraph 2 of the plaint it was stated to be 'not admitted'. Further in paragraph 2 of the written statement, it was specifically mentioned that the plaintiff has not a selected TXR (Train Examiner) and that he had been temporarily promoted as TXR in a local arrangement and this arrangement was purely on a temporary measure and this fact was specifically mentioned in the order also. This reply in the written statement clearly amounts to denial of the plaint case and there is no scope for the argument that the allegation made in paragraph 2 of the plaint should be deemed to be admitted under Order 8 Rule 5 C.P.C. The plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence to prove his selection to this post before he was asked to officiate as train examiner. On the contrary, the Railway has placed Ext. A-2 dated 3-6-1959 by which the plaintiff was asked to officiate as Train Examiner. In this letter it is mentioned that he was being appointed to officiate as TXR Grade Rs. 100-185 at the same Station against the existing vacancies. However, there are two important notes appended to the letter as under :- "(1) The above officiating arrangement is purely as a temporary measure and they will have no claim to the post of TXR Grade Rs. 100-185 in future unless they are selected for the Intensive training course by a constituted Selection Board of Hd. Qr. Office and are declared suitable after completion of the training period. (2) The above person may be replaced by qualified hands at any time without giving them any prior notice." 6. 100-185 in future unless they are selected for the Intensive training course by a constituted Selection Board of Hd. Qr. Office and are declared suitable after completion of the training period. (2) The above person may be replaced by qualified hands at any time without giving them any prior notice." 6. In view of the clear statement, made in this appointment letter, it is obvious that neither the plaintiff had been selected to officiate as Train Examiner nor he had acquired any lien to the post. Since he subsequently failed to pass the requisite rests for selection for intensive training as a Train Examiner he did not satisfy the conditions laid down in note 1. Therefore, the circular letter on which the plaintiff has relied cannot come to his rescue. 7. The notification dated 21-5-1956 gave protection to employees officiating in higher grades for a long period. The relevant portion of the circular is as under : "The Board therefore desires that with immediate effect the performances of every Railway servant officiating in a higher grade should be adjusted by the department officer before the expiry of 12 mouths of the total officiating services and if the performance is not satisfactory either the Railway servants may be reverted on the ground of the unsuitability or he may be warned that his work is not quite satisfactory but he is being permitted to draw his increment on the assumption that his performances will improve during the next end of the extended period of 6 months i.e., total officiating service of 18 months either the person would be declared suitable for retention in the grade or should be reverted because he is unsuitable. Any person who is permitted to continue for unsatisfactory work without following procedure prescribed in the discipline the appeal rules will be confirmed." 8. This circular became subject of controversy and was subsequently cancelled by Board's circulars dated 1-2-1960 and 14-5-1960. The policy was again altered when a fresh notification dated 9-6-1965 was issued, the rule relevant portion of which is extracted below :- "Board have considered that matter and feel that it would not be correct to effect such reversions after prolonged officiating period. They have, therefore, decided again that in future, any person who is permitted to officiate beyond 18 months cannot be reverted for unsatisfactory work without following the Discipline and Appeal Rules." 9. They have, therefore, decided again that in future, any person who is permitted to officiate beyond 18 months cannot be reverted for unsatisfactory work without following the Discipline and Appeal Rules." 9. This circular was thereafter clarified by tire 'Railway Board' in its circular letter No. E (D & A) 65RG624 dated 15-1-1966 which reads as under : "Sub : Reversion on grounds of general unsuitability of staff officiating in a higher grade or post. Reference Board's letter of even number dated 9-6-1965 wherein it has, inter alia, been stated that, in future, any person who is permitted to officiate beyond 18 months cannot be reverted for unsatisfactory work without following the procedure prescribed in the Discipline and Appeal Rules. A question has been raised whether this safeguard applies to person who are officiating on promotion as a stop-gap measure and not after empanelment (in the grade of selection posts) and after passing the suitability test (in the case of non-selection posts). It is clarified that the safeguard applies to only those employees who have acquired a prescriptive right to the officiating posts by virtue of their empanelment or having been declared suitable by the competent authorities. It does not apply to those officiating or promotion as a stop-gap measure and also to those cases where an employee, duly selected, has to be reverted after a lapse of 18 months because of cancellation of Selection Board proceedings or due to a change in the panel position consequent to rectification of mistakes in seniority etc." 10. This circular letter amply clarifies the position and it lays down that the earlier circulars apply to only those employees who had acquired a prescriptive right to the officiating posts by virtue of their empanelment or having been declared suitable by the competent authorities. It was also clarified that the earlier circular dated 9-6-1965 did not apply to those who were officiating on promotion as a stop-gap measure and also to those cases where an employee duly selected has to be reverted after a lapse of 18 months because of cancellation of Selection Board proceedings or due to a change in the panel position consequent to rectification of mistakes in seniority etc. It was also before any advantage could be taken by the plaintiff, he must satisfy the court that either competent authorities as suitable for the officiating post. It was also before any advantage could be taken by the plaintiff, he must satisfy the court that either competent authorities as suitable for the officiating post. In the instant case, after the plaintiff was given an opportunity to officiate as Train Examiner, he was required to appear for a test for undergoing intentive training as Train Examiner. In spite of three attempts he could not cross the hurdle and was not even selected for that training. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff must be deemed to be unsuitable for purposes of Train Examiner or ill any case he is a person who has not been found suitable by competent authority to the post on which he was officiating. In such circumstances, clearly the circular would not be applicable. 11. A Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 3427 of 1977 Hari Padakar v. Union of India decided on 3-9-1980 held as under : "The selection was purely on a temporary ad hoc basis pending final selection and the benefit of the circular regarding continuous officiation on a higher post for more than 18 months was not available to the petitioner as the said benefit is available only to those employees who acquired prescriptive right to the higher post by virtue of their employment or having been declared suitable by the competent authority and it does not apply to those officiating an higher posts only as a stop-gap arrangement." 12. In Pashupati Narain Sinha v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Patna 18 a similar question arose and it was held that where the petitioner was temporarily put to officiate in a higher grade as a stop-gap measure, no right was granted to him to claim for higher grade unless selected. If reversion to substantive scale takes place without attaching any stigma, the order does not amount to reduction in rank by way of punishment so as to attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, In that case also, their Lordships of the Patna High Court were dealing with circulars issued by the Railway Board from time to time. In the above circumstances, it is obvious that the order of reversion to the substantive post is neither by way of punishment nor it attaches any stigma to the plaintiff. In the above circumstances, it is obvious that the order of reversion to the substantive post is neither by way of punishment nor it attaches any stigma to the plaintiff. He was placed in the higher grade of Train Examiner only on ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement which did not entitle him to any claim in respect of that post merely because he continued to officiate for more than 18 months. The position would have been different if he had been selected to officiate or if he was found suitable after the test to be a fit person to the post of Train Examiner. He having failed to qualify on both the grounds was not entitled to lay claim on the post. 13. As a result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.