ORDER : Doraiswamy Raju, J. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in OA No.80 of 1992 dated 27th September, 1994 whereunder the Tribunal, while allowing the claim of the first respondent herein for promotion to the post of E.L.F. (Electrical) Fitter Grade-II) on the basis of a trade test held on 28-4-1987 in which he was said to have been declared successful, without appearing for and undergoing successfully the suitability test once again. In the process of granting the relief the Tribunal also held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India what in its view was the offending portion of Rule 224 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume -I providing that an "employee has again to appear for a suitability test when his turn for promotion comes". A time limit for implementation of the order was also stipulated but it is seen from the file of this appeal, not only interim orders have been obtained but the said interim orders have been ordered to be continued pending disposal of the appeal. 2. The respondent though served with notice has chosen not to appear in person or through counsel to contest the claim. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants challenge the decision of the Tribunal that in the light of a specific stipulation contained in Rule 214 (c) (iv), the provision contained in Rule 224 (II)(i) insisting upon the appearance for a suitability test again when the turn for promotion comes subsequently though after he refused to accept on two occasions the offer of promotion, would be arbitrary and unreasonable and denial of the right acquired by the first respondent by virtue of the earlier passing of the suitability test. Rule 214 (c) (iv) and Rule 224 (II) (i) are as under : "214 (c) (iv). An employee who has passed a suitability test once need not be called for the test again and should be eligible for promotion as and when vacancies arises. ** ** ** ** 224. (II) (i). Non-selection Posts - Such an employee should be debarred for future promotion for one year but not be transferred away from that station for one year if unavoidable domestic reasons exists. ** ** ** ** 224. (II) (i). Non-selection Posts - Such an employee should be debarred for future promotion for one year but not be transferred away from that station for one year if unavoidable domestic reasons exists. He should again be debarred for promotion for one year in case he refuses promotion again after the first year of debarrment or refusal of promotion for second time, the Administration can however transfer him to outstation in the same grade and the employee has again to appear for a suitability test when his turn for promotion comes." 4. One reason which weighed with the Tribunal also seems to be that Rule 214 (c)(iv) which was inserted by a proceeding dated 13th October, 1967 had the effect of overriding Rule 224 II(i) which came to be included as a part of the Rules on 14th October, 1966. On that basis the Tribunal felt that the so called offending portion of Rule 224 II (i) noticed above which had the effect of not only debarring a person who got into the select list removed from the same but subjecting him once over again to undergo the suitability test which in the opinion of the Tribunal amounted to double jeopardy. We find also a casual reference in the order of the Tribunal that the Rules contained in the Manual in question has no statutory force. In a decision of this Court reported in 1978 (1) SCC 158 entitled The Railway Board and others v. P.R. Subramaniyam and others it has been observed as under : "3. In the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I are the Rules framed by the President of India under Article 309 of the Constitution. Contained in the said code is the well-known Rule 157 which authorises the Railway Board, as permissible under Article 309, to have "full powers to make rules of general application to non-gazetted railway servants under their control". The Railway Board have been framing rules in exercise of this power from time to time. No special procedure or method is prescribed for the making of such rules by the Railway Board. But they have been treated as rules having the force of rules framed under Article 309 pursuant to the delegated power to the Railway Board if they are of general application to non-gazetted railway servants or to a class of them." 5. No special procedure or method is prescribed for the making of such rules by the Railway Board. But they have been treated as rules having the force of rules framed under Article 309 pursuant to the delegated power to the Railway Board if they are of general application to non-gazetted railway servants or to a class of them." 5. The assumption to the contra by the Tribunal without any further exercise does not appear to be correct. 6. As for the decision of the Tribunal that Rule 224 II(i) noticed above is not only inconsistent and contrary to Rule 214 (c)(iv) which was inserted later in point of time but also had the effect of inflicting a double jeopardy, insofar as it denied the right of the first respondent to promotion pursuant to the suitability test passed by him in the year 1987, we are of the view that the Tribunal's conclusion cannot be approved to be correct. Rule 214 (c)(iv) lays down the manner in which non-selection posts have to be filled up and it is laid down that employees passing the suitability test should be placed in the select list and an employee who has passed the suitability test once need not be called for the test again and "should be eligible for promotion as and when vacancies arises" (emphasis supplied). The next and the subsequent stage after the preparation of the select list is dealt with under Rule 224 II(i). The provisions in Rule 224 II(i) noticed above becomes not only relevant but an essential prescription to avoid an abuse by the employee concerned also and dictate terms at his whims as to when he will accept promotion though offered when the vacancy arose after his inclusion in the list. As and when vacancies arose after a particular employee passed the suitability test and got placement in the list was offered an appointment on promotion but such person avoids and refuses to accept the promotion it becomes necessary to consider as to how long and how many times he has the choice to do so and as to whether the Department has to indefinitely wait for all times. The stipulation in Rule 214 (c)(iv) as it stands obligated the authorities to promote and appoint an employee who passes the suitability test and got into the select list, the moment the vacancy arose and his turn for promotion reached. Once such person refuses promotion when proposed to be given, normally it should be that his claim thereafter lapsed and if on a subsequent occasion he desires to get promoted he must undergo suitability test which only would entitle him to get himself included in the subsequent select lists to justify his promotion. 7. Consequently, it becomes necessary for such a person if he wants to gain promotion thereafter to undergo once again the process meant for promotion in respect of non-selection posts. It is to alleviate harshness to a person who could not accept the promotion when offered pursuant to his inclusion in the select list for one or the other justifying reasons, Rule 224 II(i) provides, in our view, a benefit by stipulating the consequences that should follow in case of such refusal of promotion in his due turn. Separate provisions have been engrafted in this regard in Rule 224 with reference to the selection posts as well as non-selection posts and so far as the non-selection posts are concerned two chances are given at the option of an employee to refuse when he was sought to be promoted in his due turn by virtue of his selection and inclusion in the select list. If only despite such refusal on two earlier occasions offers made to promote the employee concerned, he is desirous of getting once again promotion he is obligated to undergo the suitability test again to have get again his turn for promotion. 8. The specification "when his turn for promotion comes" in Rule 224 would mean the turn for promotion for the third time comes, after earlier two turns which had come to him and the authorities were prepared to promote him, but which he declined. Viewed, thus, it cannot be assumed there is any inconsistency whatsoever between these two provisions. 8. The specification "when his turn for promotion comes" in Rule 224 would mean the turn for promotion for the third time comes, after earlier two turns which had come to him and the authorities were prepared to promote him, but which he declined. Viewed, thus, it cannot be assumed there is any inconsistency whatsoever between these two provisions. The other reason assigned by the Tribunal that the relevant portion of Rule 214 was in later point of time, cannot in any way have the effect of superseding the provisions contained in Rule 224 noticed above, for the reason that they deal with two different stages involved in the consideration of claim for promotions. The provision contained in Rule 224, in our view, is not only just, reasonable but necessary to prevent abuse by the employee concerned also to keep avoiding promotions in their due turn when offered to be promoted, to the detriment of both administrative exigencies and public interest. Consequently, the reasoning of the Tribunal that it had the effect of inflicting double jeopardy and suffered the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness cannot be upheld or approved by us. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, is hereby set aside. 9. The appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.