JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - In this petition, directed against the order, dated 3rd of April, 1978, passed by the Divisional Superintendent (P), North-Eastern Railway, Lucknow, directing modification of the panel prepared by the selection committee as a result of written test and interview held in 1975, the short question that arises for consideration is if the power has been exercised as contemplated under paragraph 216 (j) of the Railway Establishment Manual. 2. The petitioners were class IV employees. By a notice dated 31-3-1975, the Divisional Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Lucknow invited applications from intending class IV employees working in both operating and commercial sides of the Division who desired to be considered for promotion from class IV to class III services. In pursuance of this notice, the petitioners and others applied, and a written test as well as an interview was held on 19-10-1975 and 17-12-1975 respectively. As a result of this examination, the petitioners and others were declared successful, and a provisional panel was prepared which was approved by the Divisional Superintendent. It is claimed by the petitioners that after the list was approved, the petitioners were promoted, and some of them were confirmed even. For instance in paras 4 to 7 of the writ petition it has been mentioned that all the petitioners were given appointment letters between 2-1-1976 and 7-1-1976, and some of the petitioners were granted next promotion, and Ram Bholey and Raj Narain were confirmed in the higher grade on 28-5-1977. It is not known what happened thereafter but the impugned order dated 3-4-1978 was communicated to the petitioners. It mentions that out of 38 candidates who were put on the panel, 16 candidates, namely the petitioners, had failed to secure the minimum prescribed qualifying marks in the written test in the aforesaid selection, therefore their names are directed to be deleted from the panel. In between this order (i. e., 3-4-1978) and the dates on which all the petitioners were given appointments, another selection was held, and a fresh panel was prepared in 1977. As the petitioners had already been selected and put on panel in 1975 they did not apply, nor were they called upon to appear before the selection committee. 3. In between this order (i. e., 3-4-1978) and the dates on which all the petitioners were given appointments, another selection was held, and a fresh panel was prepared in 1977. As the petitioners had already been selected and put on panel in 1975 they did not apply, nor were they called upon to appear before the selection committee. 3. The question, therefore, that arises is, whether the competent authority which passed the impugned order in 1978 could exercise its power after the panel in 1977 was drawn and some of the petitioners had even been confirmed. Paragraph 216 (J) of the Railway Establishment Manual reads as under : - "After the competent authority has accepted the recommendations of the Selection Board, the names of the candidates selected will be notified to the candidates. A panel once approved should normally not be cancelled or amended. If after formation and announcement of the panel with the approval of the competent authority, it is found subsequently that there were procedural irregularities or other defects and it is considered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel this should be done after obtaining the approval of the authority next higher than the one that approved the panel." 4. The power can be exercised for procedural irregularity or other defects. No time-limit is provided in the paragraph. At the same time the exercise of power should be rare as the rules itself provides that a panel drawn should not be cancelled normally. And that also within a reasonable time. The omission in the rule of time-limit should no be understood as conferring blanket power to be exercised at any time as that is fraught with grave danger, and can result in disturbing the services of the employees and may create complications. So far as this case is concerned, it can reasonably be held that the authorities could have exercised the power before the second panel was drawn. As they exercised their power after formation of a fresh panel, the order cannot be sustained. Further, it is cry doubtful if petitioners who had been appointed on the basis of recommendations of the selection committee and were confirmed as well could be reverted by an order passed by the General Manager without affording any opportunity. 5. As they exercised their power after formation of a fresh panel, the order cannot be sustained. Further, it is cry doubtful if petitioners who had been appointed on the basis of recommendations of the selection committee and were confirmed as well could be reverted by an order passed by the General Manager without affording any opportunity. 5. In paragraph of the writ petition it has been stated that the selection included a written test and viva voice test, and the petitioners were called for interview only because they had obtained the requisite minimum marks in the written test as contemplated under the provisions of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual. It is not denied as no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. The result of the petitioners is shown to be cancelled only because they failed in the written examination. It is not supported by any document. The marks obtained by petitioners have not been disclosed. Normally a person is called for interview only if he has secured minimum marks in written examination. As no counter affidavit has been filed it cannot be known if petitioners were called for written test and interview simultaneously. In the absence of any material it has to be assumed that the petitioners had passed the written examination, and consequently, the order passed by the General Manager suffers from an error of fact. 6. This petition was filed in 1978. Weave informed by learned counsel for petitioners that some of petitioners have been promoted even in higher class in 1984. It can, therefore, be-.safely assumed that the Railways do not desire to contest the claim of the petitioners that the panel drawn in their favour in 1975 was valid and that is why they did not file any counter-affidavit. 7. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Order passed by the General Manager, communicated to the petitioners by the Divisional Superintendent (P) North Eastern Railway, Lucknow on 3-4-1978 is quashed. As no counter-affidavit has been filed there shall be no order as to costs.