JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. These appeals are filed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 4815/01, 4838/01 and 1336/02 respectively. The common appellants are the respondents in the writ petition, being the Coal India Limited and its Officers. The various writ petitioners tiled the writ petitions praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 13.6.2001 passed by the Director (Personnel) of Bharat Coking Coal Limited rejecting the representations of the writ petitioners claiming selection to the executive cadre post. That order rejecting the representations was passed by the Director (Personnel) on the basis of a direction issued by this Court in CWJC No. 1715/2001 whereby, he was directed to consider the representations on merits and to take a decision on the prayer of the petitioners in those representations. According to the writ petitioners, the Chairmen-cum-Managing Directors of the subsidiaries of Coal India Ltd. at Sanctoria, Ranchi, Singrauli, Nagpur, Bilaspur and Dhanbad had recommended that Sr. Foremen/Sr. Overman with seven years of experience, should be considered for promotion to Level E-1 on the basis of A.C.Rs and interviews subject to the minimum educational qualifications. The promotions should be based on the suitability and the supervisory post in the non-executive cadre would be up-graded to executive Level E-1, if the supervisors are selected for promotion. It is seen from Annexure-1, the letter written by the Director (Personnel & IR) of Bharat Coking Coal Limited dated 20.2.1987 forwarding the recommendation, that the group constituted by CMDs to examine the problem of first line supervisors in mines had made the recommendations and the recommendations have been accepted and they have to be implemented. According to the petitioners, in spite of this recommendation they were asked to pass a written test held by Coal India Limited for their selection to the executive cadre post. They had not attended that written test in view of their stand that it was necessary for them to take such a written test and the rejection of their claim for promotion/up-gradation on the ground that they had not taken part in the written test, was not legal. Their case was entirely built upon the letter dated 20.2.1987 issued by the Director of Personnel of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. 2. Their case was entirely built upon the letter dated 20.2.1987 issued by the Director of Personnel of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. 2. Their claim was met by the appellants herein by pointing out that the writ petitioners were in the Electrical and Mechanical cadre and were not in the Mining cadre or Supervisors cadre. As per the Common Coal Cadre circulated by Coal India Limited, the promotion of a non-executive to the executive cadre E-1 could be undertaken only after a written test and not without it. Since the Common Coal Cadre could not be by-passed or ignored, the writ petitioners who have not passed the written test could not be given promotion to the executive cadre. The respondents also relied on the further correspondence in relation to the letter dated 20.2.1987 relied on by the writ petitioners to submit that the passing of the written test for the Electrical and Mechanical cadre to which the writ petitioners belonged, had not been done away with. The learned single Judge posed the question whether the circular letter dated 20.2.1987 contemplated the holding of a written test for promotion of the writ petitioners belonging to the Electrical and Mechanical Cadre and having come to the conclusion that the said communication did not contemplate the holding of a written test, allowed the writ petitions and directed the Coal India Limited to consider the eligibility of Sr. Foreman/Sr. Overman who have seven years of experience, for up-gradation from non-executive to executive E-1 level on the basis of ACRs and interviews subject to the minimum educational qualification. The learned Judge though noticed the Common Coal Cadre guidelines formulated as directed by the Central Government, did not consider the effect of the relevant regulations on the suggestions for promotion contained in the letter dated 20.2.1987 relied on by the writ petitioners. It is feeling aggrieved by the decision thus rendered by the learned single Judge that the Coal India Limited and its officers have come up with these appeals. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the writ petitioners were holding non-executive posts in the Electrical and Mechanical Cadre and they can be promoted to the executive cadre only after a written test and interview as contemplated by Clause 4.10.1 of the Common Coal Cadre guidelines which have universal application to all the subsidiaries of Coal India Limited including the Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Counsel contended that the letter dated 20.2.1987 could not have been read in isolation by the learned single Judge and the same should have been read along with the other correspondences that took place after the said circular letter was issued by the Director (Personnel) of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Therefore, it was contended that in any event the understanding of the effect of the communication dated 20.2.1987 by the learned single Judge was not correct. He further submitted that the circular letter dated 20.2.1987 cannot in any event prevail over the Common Coal Cadre guidelines which are to be followed scrupulously in the matter of effecting promotions and other related matters. This was necessary to ensure certitude in service. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents argued that this was a one time up- gradation of the posts and the process in the Common Coal Cadre guidelines relied on by counsel for the appellants was not relevant. He alternatively contended that whereas the Common Coal Cadre guidelines deal with promotions, this was a case of up- gradation and in that view also the Common Coal Cadre guidelines could not be applied. He contended that the subsequent correspondences relied on by the appellants were not relevant and the communication dated 20.2.1987 was clear and it had dispensed with the written test whatever be the cadre that was involved and in that view there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned single Judge. 4. On the formation of the Coal India Limited, the pattern of administration of executive cadres was set out in the Government of Indias letter No. 38011/1/74-CAF dated 27.9.1975. The said letter stipulated in so far as the personnel matters were concerned, that the function of the Coal India Limited will be to set overall corporate objectives and approve and review strategies for the achievement of those objectives to establish policies regarding recruitment, training, safety, industrial relations, wages (to the extent it is relevant for our purpose) and to coordinate among the subsidiary companies etc. It was also directed that there should be a common Coal Cadre for Coal India Limited and the subsidiary Companies. The recruitment of all personnel at the level of the executives would be made by the Coal India Limited on behalf of the subsidiary companies. It was also directed that there should be a common Coal Cadre for Coal India Limited and the subsidiary Companies. The recruitment of all personnel at the level of the executives would be made by the Coal India Limited on behalf of the subsidiary companies. The Coal India Limited would arrange for training of personnel where necessary and would thereafter allot them to different subsidiary companies taking into consideration the companies needs. In pursuance of the directives of the Government for administering the Common Coal Cadre a task force was constituted. The recommendations were made by the task force taking into consideration the various aspects. As a result, norms and procedures for operating the executive cadre in different companies and in the Coal India Limiteds Head quarter were evolved. A brochure on the Common Coal Cadre scheme was placed in the 13th Meeting of Board of Directors of Coal India Limited held on 24/25-2-1987. The Board considered the matter and approved the Coal Cadre as it is now obtaining. In the light of the decision of the Board, the Coal Cadre Scheme had been finalized and was being published for information of all concerned. It is, therefore, clear that the Common Coal Cadre Scheme is the operative scheme covering the services of the employees of the Coal India Limited and all its subsidiaries including the employers of all the writ petitioners. 5. That the writ petitioners belong to non-executive cadre is not in dispute. That they are holding the highest post in that cadre is also not in dispute. Therefore, their avenue of promotion is the executive cadre. The promotional opportunities to certain categories of the employees is dealt with in Clause 4.10 of the Common Coal Cadre Scheme. 5. That the writ petitioners belong to non-executive cadre is not in dispute. That they are holding the highest post in that cadre is also not in dispute. Therefore, their avenue of promotion is the executive cadre. The promotional opportunities to certain categories of the employees is dealt with in Clause 4.10 of the Common Coal Cadre Scheme. It appears to us that it would be appropriate to read the relevant clauses dealing with promotion of the various disciplines including the Electrical and Mechanical cadre to which the writ petitioners belong : "4.10 Promotional Opportunities to certain categories of employees.--4.10.1 From Non-Executives to Executive Cadre-- (a) The quota reserved for departmental promotion to grade E-1 or E-2, as the case may be, in various disciplines will be as follows : Accounts and finance : 10% of the posts to be filled in a financial year Materials management: 1/3rd -do- Engineering (non-mining) : 1/3rd -do- Personnel & administration : 50% -do- Sales & marketing : 50% -do- Other miscellaneous : 50% -do- Surve : 100% -do- (b) All promotions from the senior most non-executive grade to the executive grade to fill in the departmental quota as indicated in (a) above will be on the basis of selection test and interview on the basis of merit. The syllabi and the methodology for conducting the test will be as laid down by the Apex Training Board and Coal India headquarters. (c) Promotion of non-executives to the executive entry grade in the disciplines where there is no established channel of promotion will be only on the basis of the recommendation of the selection committee against advertisement/notification of vacancies which will be centrally controlled by Coal India HQs. 4.10.2. Mining discipline.--Form non- executive to Executive Cadre,-- (a) In order to provide promotional opportunities to the Overmen/Senior Overmen, who are unable to obtain second class competency certificate, it has been decided to upgrade 15% of each of the total posts occupied by the following eligible Overmen/Senior Overmen to E-1 grade. The eligibility for consideration for promotion would be : (i) Seven years total experience as Overman/Senior Overman or Head Overman in the case of recognized mining diploma holders. (ii) Seven years experience as Senior Overman or Head Overman in case the incumbent does not possess any recognized diploma. (b) Promotions to this grade would be on the basis of recommendations of the selection committee. (ii) Seven years experience as Senior Overman or Head Overman in case the incumbent does not possess any recognized diploma. (b) Promotions to this grade would be on the basis of recommendations of the selection committee. (c) On promotion, they will continue to discharge the statutory functions of Overman/Senior Overman. (d) Promotion to the grades beyond E-1 will be considered only if they possess the requisite statutory qualifications as laid down in the cadre scheme for mining discipline. 4.10.3 Survey discipline.--From non-executive to Executive Cadre, i.e. from Surveyor to the post of Assistant Survey Officer in E-1 Grade. All posts of Assistant Survey Officer in grade E-1 will be filled in departmentally from amongst th6 surveyors with minimum of seven years experience after acquiring the qualification for Surveyors post." 6. It is clear from Clause 4.10.1(b) that all promotions from the senior most non-executive grade to the executive grade to fill in the departmental quota in the disciplines other than mining discipline and survey discipline has to be on the basis of a selection test and interview on the basis of merit. The syllabi and methodology for conducting the test would be as laid down by the Apex Training Board and Coal India headquarters. Therefore, going by the relevant clause applicable to the writ petitioners, they could aspire for promotion only if they had gone through the selection test and the interview thereafter. The letter dated 20.2.1987 relied on by the writ petitioners was one suggesting that new recommendations have been accepted on 27.1.1987 and as per item No. 5 referred to therein, the question of up-grading of Senior Foreman and Senior Overman with seven years experience to the executive level of E-1 post on ACRs and interviews may be taken up. But this letter was followed by others and it ultimately resulted in the communication dated 28.4.1987 in which it was clarified that supervisory personnel in Tech-A belonging to civil, electrical and mechanical and mining should be eligible for promotion doubts expressed by some/upgradation to E-1 provided they fulfil the prescribed minimum qualification as per Common Coal Cadre and as indicated in the letter dated 20.2.1987. In other words, it was clarified that the promotion to the supervisory cadre would be consistent with the requirement of the relevant clause in the Common Coal Cadre. In other words, it was clarified that the promotion to the supervisory cadre would be consistent with the requirement of the relevant clause in the Common Coal Cadre. It appears to us that when the subject was being thrashed out in a series of correspondence it would not be proper to rely on only one of the letters to come to a conclusion that a mandatory requirement set down in the Common Coal Cadre scheme was given the go-by, by the concerned department or employer. The correspondence has to be read as a whole and what we get on reading the correspondence as a whole is that there was nothing new in the circular except that the question of up-gradation to the promotional post have to be taken up with a view to improving the quality of supervisors. Thus understood, there is merit in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Judge was not correct in reading the communication dated 20.4.1987 alone and in holding that no written test was necessary for promotion in the Electrical and Mechanical cadre to which the writ petitioners belong. Going by the Common Coal Cadre scheme, surveyors and mining cadre stood on a different footing and the distinction made by the scheme could not be obliterated without corresponding amendment to the scheme. 7. There is also another aspect. When he service under Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries is governed by a Common Coal Cadre scheme framed by the Coal India Limited as directed by the Government of India, the said Common Coal Cadre scheme has to be followed by all the subsidiaries as governing the service conditions of its employees. It would not be proper for the Court to rely on a communication issued by a Director (Personnel); no doubt, based on an alleged decision taken in that behalf, suggesting that promotion can be made on the basis of the ACRs and interviews and on the requisite educational qualification. Such a stand would be against the terms of Common Coal Cadre scheme and it appears to us that it would lead to great uncertainty in service matters and will give room for arbitrariness if the strict implementation of the Common Coal cadre scheme is not insisted upon. Such a stand would be against the terms of Common Coal Cadre scheme and it appears to us that it would lead to great uncertainty in service matters and will give room for arbitrariness if the strict implementation of the Common Coal cadre scheme is not insisted upon. With respect, it appears to us that the learned single Judge has not considered this aspect of the effect of the provision in the Common Coal Cadre scheme even though he has in fact referred to the relevant clause in the common Coal Cadre scheme in the judgment under appeal. In our view, if there has to be a variation of the service conditions of the employees of Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, what is called for is an amendment of the Common Coal Cadre scheme. A decision or recommendation as against the specific provision in the Common Coal Cadre scheme would not be enough. In that view also we are satisfied that the learned single Judge was not justified in up-holding the plea of the writ petitioners. 8. For the reasons stated above, we allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge. We dismiss the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners. We make no order as to costs.