Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-All these petitions arise from the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27.01.2006 in three Original Application Nos. 253, 259 and 260/2005. Since, the basic issue raised in all these Original Applications was common relating to exercise of power by the Railway Administration in canceling the qualifying/selection tests for appointment to the posts of Station Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 7,450/--11,500/-Station Masters in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and to the posts of Passenger Guards in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 held, on different dates between 12.03.2005 to 01.05.2005 for different posts, details of which we shall notice shortly, though such details are not of significant relevance for the controversy raised in these petitions. After the examinations were held, and all concerned had participated in the examination, the result for the post of Station Superintendents, and for the post of Station Master were declared on 18.05.2005 and for the posts of Passenger Guards was declared on 21.06.2005. 2. After the results were declared in the first instance, some individual representations were made raising objections to the format of question papers set for the examination so held, for the posts of Station Superintendents and Station Masters on 30.05.2005. The first of such representation by four individuals dated 30.05.2005 was submitted for cancelling the examination of Station Superintendents grade Rs. 7450-11500 stating that the question paper for examination was not made bilingual as required by the letter of the Railway Board dated 08.07.1992. The Question No. 3 was not clear because the examinees were required to translate and it was not clear in which language; that no question was set in regard to the official language whereas in every written test, at least one question relating to the official language was required to be set and significantly about consequent inquiry it was alleged that in the selection the juniors candidates have been declared passed in preference to the senior candidates. 3. Similarly, another representation was submitted by ten individual candidates, pointing out similar defects in the written test for the examination held for Station Master grade Rs. 6500-10500 and sought cancellation of the examination held on 18.05.2002. 3. Similarly, another representation was submitted by ten individual candidates, pointing out similar defects in the written test for the examination held for Station Master grade Rs. 6500-10500 and sought cancellation of the examination held on 18.05.2002. The employees stated that there was no question set for official language; that the question paper was not bilingual; that it was only in Hindi and that junior persons have been declared passed and seniors have been declared failed. Other allegations were made that there were many defects in the current selection process. But none was pointed out. It was emphasized that the applicants are senior employees and they are loyal to the railway, therefore, the representation should be accepted. 4. Until then no complaint or grievance was raised by the Union nor any grievance was raised about question paper pertaining to selection of Passenger Guard. It was only after result of examination held, for Passenger Guards was declared, on 25.06.2005, a representation was submitted by Babu Singh, Secretary of the Western Railway Employees Union to the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Jodhpur stating that about 15 senior Goods Guards have represented that in the examinations held, on 15.05.2002 and 21.05.2002 for selecting Passenger Train Guards, the question paper did not have questions on any official language; some of the candidates were using mobile phones and some of them were using books for answering the questions; that the syllabus was not declared in advance and that the Senior Goods Train Guards were failed. Passing reference was made to two persons who were promoted without taking tests and that the result of the written test for selecting Senior Passenger Guards was sought to be cancelled. 5. A letter was also received from Deputy Director, Raj Bhasha, Railway Board dated 23.06.2005 stating that in the written test held for Station Superintendent Grade 7450-11500 and Station Master Grade 6500-10500 the question paper was only in Hindi language and not bilingual and no question was set about official language whereas 10% marks should have been allotted to the questions relating to official language. The comments on the aforesaid aspect of the written test were sought. No request for cancelling the test for that reason was made. 6. The comments on the aforesaid aspect of the written test were sought. No request for cancelling the test for that reason was made. 6. Thereafter, a similar complaint was also lodged by Western Railway Employees Union through its Secretary vide letter dated 25.06.2006 about the written test held for Station Superintendent and Station Master. It was stated in this letter for the first time that in the question appears, the directions issued by the Railway Board on 07.08.2003 was not adhered to by providing objective type of questions. Apart from the aforesaid ground of lack of fulfillment of objective type question, it was repeated that the question paper was not bilingual but was set only in Hindi and that no question was set, carrying 10% of total marks relating to ‘Raj Bhasha’. It was stated that some of the candidates had mobile phones with them and books were being used by them. It was also alleged that senior employees who have followed discipline were declared failed. On the allegations, the cancellation of examinations was sought. 7. A representation was also received from candidates, who have passed the examination, apprehending that the candidates who have failed are trying to get the result cancelled, to counter above representation. 8. Ultimately by two separate orders dated 23.08.2005, all the three examinations were cancelled. The order cancelling examination for Station Superintendents as Station Masters reads as under:- 9. Similar order, also dated 23.08.2005, was passed cancelling the examination held on 14.05.2005 and supplementary examinations held on 21.05.2005 for the post of Passengers Guards Grade 5000-8000, which reads as under: 10. To challenge cancellation of the examinations as above, the candidates who were declared successful in the said examinations preferred above three Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its common order dated 27.01.2006 passed in all the three Original Applications set aside the orders dated 23-8-2005 in relation to the examinations held for the post of Passenger Guard and Station Master by allowing the OA Nos. 252 and 259 of 2005 but dismissed the OA No. 260/2005 (R.K. Ojha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.,) by holding that the question paper for Station Superintendents did not contain the 50% of the objective type questions, therefore, the cancellation order was justified. .11. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, these five writ petitions have been filed. vs. Union of India & Ors.,) by holding that the question paper for Station Superintendents did not contain the 50% of the objective type questions, therefore, the cancellation order was justified. .11. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, these five writ petitions have been filed. Union of India have preferred two writ petitions, challenging the order passed in OA Nos. 253 and 259 of 2005. The writ petitions filed by the Union of India are:- .(i) DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2516/2006 arising out of OA No. 253 relating to the examination held for selecting Passenger Guard Grade 5000-8000 and; .(ii) DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2515/2006, relating to OA No. 259/2005, relating to the cancellation of examination held for selection of Station Master Grade 6500-10500. .12. Two writ petitions have been filed by different set of private individuals against the same Original Applications; .(i) Writ Petition No. 669/2006 which has been preferred by Ram Ratan & Ors., relates to written test held for the post of Station Master Grade 6500-10500, and; .(ii) Writ Petition No. 1264/2006 has been preferred by Vinay Kumar & Ors., Challenging the setting aside of the order dated 23.08.2005 cancelling the written test held for selecting Passenger Train Guards Grade 5000-8000, result of which was declared on 25.06.2005. 13. The above four writ petitions relate to setting aside the Tribunal’s order, allowing the OA Nos. 253 and 259 of 2005, and are preferred by the UOI and candidates who have failed in the examinations, respectively. 14. Lastly, Writ Petition No. 594/2006 has been preferred by R.K. Ojha & Ors., whose Original Application for quashing the order dated 23.08.2005 cancelling the written test held for the posts of Station Superintendents has been dismissed. Thus, it is by the candidates who have passed the examination held for selecting the candidates for the posts of Station Superintendents. 15. All the questions raised in these writ petitions are about the commonality of the issue relating to alleged violations of the instructions for setting up the question papers and the exercise of power by the Railway Administration in cancelling the examination without reasons. 16. So far as the question of vesting of power with the Railway Administration to cancel the examination is concerned, this has not been in dispute and, in our opinion, rightly so. 16. So far as the question of vesting of power with the Railway Administration to cancel the examination is concerned, this has not been in dispute and, in our opinion, rightly so. Even in the absence of any rule, the authority who has right to hold the examination possesses the right to cancel the examination also as it is inherent in the power to hold the examination. 17. The defects which have been pointed out on behalf of the respective complainants in respect of all the examinations, two are common. Firstly that the questions papers were required to be set in bilingual format but the questions papers were set only in Hindi and secondly that no question was set in Raj Bhasha. The fact that the question paper was not set in bilingual format and no question was set in respect of Raj Bhasha are not the facts in dispute. 18. So far as the question paper relating to the post of Station Masters and Station Superintendent was concerned, one complaint speak about not setting the requisite number of objective type of questions as per the circular of the Railway Board about which rival claims have been made by the respective parties. 19. The Railway Administration has taken stand before the Court that the Circular issued by the Railway Administration being of binding nature and having statutory force. Circular dated 011.1998 required setting up of bilingual question papers and providing one question for Raj Bhasha and by another circular dated 07.08.2003 it was required that certain percentage of marks be allotted to objective type questions. In violation of these circulars there was no option with the Railway Authorities but to cancel the examination. In other words, breaches of directives of the Circular of the Railway Board issued from time to time in that regard must necessarily result in invalidation of the examination according to respondent Railway Administration and no discretion was left with the concerned authorities but to cancel the examination. 20. On behalf of the successful candidates it was contended that the power to cancel the examination, which vested in the respondents was to be exercised at the discretion of such authority. Every irregularity committed in setting up the question papers would not result in automatic cancellation of the examination. 20. On behalf of the successful candidates it was contended that the power to cancel the examination, which vested in the respondents was to be exercised at the discretion of such authority. Every irregularity committed in setting up the question papers would not result in automatic cancellation of the examination. Like any other discretionary power, the power was required to be exercised on relevant consideration by considering whether the breaches committed in setting up the question papers should necessarily result in cancellation of examination or in other words, the harm and the prejudice caused to the candidates as a class as a result of alleged breaches and whether the question papers were in accordance with object with which examinations are held, must necessarily go into consideration before the steps can be taken for cancelling the examination. Decision making process and decision has been vitiated because of the mechanical manner in which the power has been exercised without application of mind to relevant consideration before exercise of the power vested in the concerned authority. It has rendered decision making process arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair resulting in wholly unjust consequences. It was urged that it is apparent that no prejudice has been caused by the allege breaches to anyone nor any such prejudice to candidates due to alleged deviation in format of question paper has been alleged by any party. No other allegation except a bald statement in some of the representations that seniors have failed and juniors have passed in examination, no nexus with failure of seniors with defects in the question paper has been spelt out either by the makers of the representations or during the course of the arguments. It was pointed out that so far as absence of question relating to Raj Bhasha is concerned, it is admitted ground that answering the question of Raj Bhasha was not even compulsory then what to say to awarding any marks. Therefore, non-inclusion of question of Raj Bhasha cannot prejudice any one and cannot effect the validity of the examination. It was also pointed out that the instructions relating to have bilingual paper was for the purpose of advancing the cause of Hindi and to make the option given to the employees to write their answers in Hindi more meaningful. Therefore, non-inclusion of question of Raj Bhasha cannot prejudice any one and cannot effect the validity of the examination. It was also pointed out that the instructions relating to have bilingual paper was for the purpose of advancing the cause of Hindi and to make the option given to the employees to write their answers in Hindi more meaningful. Therefore, the object of having a question papers to advance the cause of examinees opting Hindi medium is not defeated by setting up the question papers only in Hindi language when it is not disputed and denied that all the employees had opted for Hindi medium and were examinees who were to write their answers in Hindi. Therefore, not publishing bilingual question papers also cannot cause any prejudice or loss to any candidates taking that examination. It was urged that the circular dated 011.1988 vests only a discretion in the competent authority to cancel the Examination only in respect of non-compliance of certain provisions of it and not in each and every part of it. It provides for giving option to candidates taking written examination for selection and promotion to write answers in Hindi and for that purpose it further requires that paper be made bilingual. It is only for breach of aforesaid requirement that competent authority has been given authority to cancel the examination. Breach of condition giving option to write answers in Hindi Medium is not even alleged and as the question papers were set in Hindi, the significance of mandate to set up the question papers in bilingual language is not defeated. It was further urged that non-setting of a question on Raj Bhasha has not been made a ground for setting aside the examination though setting up a question on Raj Bhasha is also part of the same instructions. The fact that this non-setting up of the questions on Raj Bhasha has also not been made a ground for which examination could be cancelled, yet this has been used as one of the grounds to cancel the examination goes to show not only non-application of mind to relevant consideration but also taking into account the irrelevant consideration for cancelling the examination, results of which have already been declared. 21. 21. So far as the dispute about non-setting up the requisite number of objective type of questions, the issue was joined about the requisite percentage of objective type of questions by pointing out the instructions showing that even the questions, answers to which were required to be given in one or two-three words are to be considered objective questions. It was urged that if the questions paper of each examination is taken into consideration, which has been placed on record by the railway administration during the course of hearing under the direction of the Court, it is revealed that such questions are part of each question papers and fulfills the requisite percentage of objective type of questions. Apart from this issue it was urged that as per the rules relating to the scheme of written test for promotion/selection to a given post what is important is that written test should be such as to test the efficiency of person who takes the examination. It is also relevant that before the question papers are found to be defective as to call for cancellation of examination whether the question papers set up by the respondents conforms to the said object. So long as this object is not defeated, the setting up of the questions papers in variance with form by itself cannot be a ground cancelling examination. Any instruction as to form of question paper can only be treated at guideline in furtherance of object of setting examination, but cannot have overriding effect to invalidate the examination where the basic object of holding examination is not affected. The rules contained in IREM do not confer specifically any power for cancelling of the examination. All the candidates having taken the examination without any objection, the objections to form of paper have been raised only after the result has been declared by some candidates who have failed. It goes to show that there has been no real grievance against he question papers. The real grievance is against the result by the persons who have failed. It was, therefore, urged that the examination cannot be cancelled at the instances of those who have taken their chance in the examination without demur and kept silence and the grievance has been raised only after the result was announced to get rid of the result. The real grievance is against the result by the persons who have failed. It was, therefore, urged that the examination cannot be cancelled at the instances of those who have taken their chance in the examination without demur and kept silence and the grievance has been raised only after the result was announced to get rid of the result. This only reflects that the question paper was designed to find the suitability of the candidates for the job to the extent the written test was required. On such a belated complaint, no action ought to have been taken by the respondents and it appears only to have been taken under some pressure of the Union to satisfy some employees, who were not successful at the examination. 22. The common thread in all the complaints whether by the private individuals or by the Unions shows that real pinch is that some seniors have failed which according to the learned Counsel appearing for the successful candidates cannot be a relevant consideration for cancelling the examination. 23. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, appearing for the unsuccessful candidates Supporting the Railway Administration, contended that it is admitted that the power to cancel the examination for breach of instructions contained in circular dated 011.1988 exists. It must be held, that the power was exercise for the purpose for which it was vested with the competent authority and therefore, no further question of judicial scrutiny arises about the validity of exercising power which lawfully vested in the respondents. Therefore, the cancellation order passed by the competent authority in respect of all the candidates was valid and the Tribunal could not have cancelled the examination held, for the posts of Station Master and Passenger guards and that sustaining of the order for the examination held, for Station Superintendent has been rightly so sustained. It was also urged that the Tribunal could not have examined the validity of order dated 23.08.2005 as an appellate authority and to reach its own conclusion about the percentage marks allotted to the objective type of questions to find substance in the rival contentions made in that regard. 24. It was also urged that the Tribunal could not have examined the validity of order dated 23.08.2005 as an appellate authority and to reach its own conclusion about the percentage marks allotted to the objective type of questions to find substance in the rival contentions made in that regard. 24. In Vinay Kumar’s case (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1264/2006), an application has also been moved for raising an additional ground that no examination in fact were required to be held, for Senior Goods Train Guards for being appointed as Passenger Guards because their pay-scales are identical and no question of promotion is involved and it is only a matter of transposition from one post to another post. Therefore, holding of written examination for such posting is not necessary. However, in that regard it is submitted by Mr. Singhvi that the applicants have also joined the same issue before the Tribunal that holding of the written examination is not required for the aforesaid post. 25. It may be stated that this question does not arise in this lis arising from the OA filed by the successful candidates before the Tribunal. Moreover, this issue has been raised before the Tribunal by way of independent original application. In view of above, the said application is rejected. However, it is without prejudice to the merits of contentions raised by Mr. Singhvi in the original application before the Tribunal pending application so far as this issue raised through the application is concerned. .26. It will be apposite here to notice the relevant provisions for holding written test as part of the procedure for selecting suitable candidates for appointment either by process of selection or by promotion from amongst the Group ‘D’ employees. The Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as “IREM”) provides the relevant rules for recruitment to Group ‘C’ staff , to which all the posts in question belong. Section “B” of Chapter II of IREM Vol I (Revised Edition 1989), which is stated to be the last published edition and has been made available to us with correction slips, lays down Rules governing the promotion of Group “C” staff . Para 211 defines promotion to include promotion from a lower grade to a higher grade, from one class to another class, from one group to another group, and categorizes posts as non-selection posts and selection posts. Para 211 defines promotion to include promotion from a lower grade to a higher grade, from one class to another class, from one group to another group, and categorizes posts as non-selection posts and selection posts. Selection posts are stated to be the posts, grades or classes which have been declared as such by the Railway Board and to which promotions are made on the basis of a positive act of selection as per procedure in force for filling up the selection posts. 27. Para 213(a) lays down basic requirement of promotion. It says:-“A Railway servant may be promoted to fill any post whether a selection post or a non-selection post only if he is considered fit to perform the duties attached to the post. The General Manager or the Head of Department or Divisional Railway Manager may prescribe the passing of specified departmental or other tests as conditions precedent to a Railway servant being considered fit to hold specified post; such rules should be published for the information of the staff concerned.” 28. Para 214(a) envisages that non-selection posts will be filled by promotion of the senior most suitable Railway servant. Suitability whether of an individual or of a group of Railway Servants being determined by the authority competent to fill the posts on the basis of the record of service and/or departmental tests, if necessary. 29. Para 215 relevant for our purpose, as the matter relates to promotion to Group “C” staff , to the posts which are selection posts, as substituted under the authority of Ministry of Railway letter No. E(NG) I-2000/PM1/41 dated 07.08.2003. Sub-para (a) of Para 215, which governs the present selection envisages that selection post shall be filled by a positive act of selection made by Selection Boards, from amongst the staff eligible for selection. The positive act of selection shall consist of written test to assess the professional ability of the candidates, for which reasonable advance notice should be sent, except in the case of selection for promotion to posts in the categories of Teachers, Law Assistants, Physiotherapists and Telephone Operators, where the positive act of selection shall consist of both written test and viva-voce test. 30. Sub-para (c) of Para 215 envisages that promotion to selection post shall be made by competent authority in accordance with recommendations of Selection Board in the manner detailed in Para 219. 3.31. 30. Sub-para (c) of Para 215 envisages that promotion to selection post shall be made by competent authority in accordance with recommendations of Selection Board in the manner detailed in Para 219. 3.31. Sub-para (d) of Para 215 permits Railway Board to adopt procedure other than the one laid down in Para 219 while deciding the individual cases of hardship. 4.32. The aforesaid provisions brings out two things very clearly that positive act of selection for promotion to selection post has to be through written test to assess the professional ability of the candidates and the requirement under Para 213, which makes it a prime consideration for any procedure for promotion to selection post or non-selection post to be fit to perform duty attached to the post. The method of assessing fitness varies, depending on the fact that post is a non-selection post or selection post. Adjudging the fitness in the case of non-selection post is primarily on the basis of service record and in a given case through departmental test. In the case of selection post, professional ability of the candidates is to be adjudged through written test. The procedure for holding written test is envisaged under Para 219, which is ordinarily to be adhered to but Railway Board has been empowered to make departure in a given case. However, the basic condition remains that it should be conducive to adjudge the professional ability of the candidates for promotion through selection. 5.33. Sub-para (a) of Para 219 envisages that when a selection post is to be filled, the authority empowered to constitute a Selection Board shall direct to the Board to assemble and make recommendations. It shall also nominate the officer who shall act as the Chairman of the Board. The responsibility for selection is cast on all the members. 6.34. Sub-para (b) of Para 219 envisages that an officer of the concerned Department who is also a member of the Selection Board must be authorised to set the question paper for written test and where possible, another officer who is also a member of the Selection Board should be nominated to evaluate the answer books, if such a test is held, as a part of the Selection or determining the professional ability. 35. 35. Sub-para (c)(i) of Para 219, which is centre of controversy was substituted with the authority of Ministry of Railway’s letter dated 211.2000 and 08.03.2002, reads as under:-“219(c)(i): In the written test, if any, held, as part of the selection for promotion to the highest grade selection post in a category, objective type questions should be set for about 50% (in the range of 45% to 55%) of the total marks for the written test. In the written test, if any, held, as part of the selection for promotion to other lower grade selection posts, objective type questions should be set to the extent of about 25% (in the range of 20% to 30%) of the total marks for the written test.” 36. By another letter dated 07.08.2003, instruction for negative marking to a wrong answer to the objective question has been deleted. By yet another letter of the Railway Board No. E(NG) 1-2004/PM1/25 Dated 21.09.2004 Clause (iii) was inserted in Para 219(c) as under:- “(iii). The question paper for the written test should have practical basis i.e. it should be designed to test the ability of the candidates to tackle the practical problems they are likely to face rather than their theoretical knowledge.” 2.37. The distribution of marks amongst the written test for adjudging professional ability, record of service and seniority has been provided under Sub-para (g). 50 marks have been assigned to adjudge the professional ability, 30 marks have been assigned to service record and 20 marks for seniority. It also provides 60% as minimum pass marks required to be obtained in professional ability as well as the minimum aggregate marks for the purpose of being included in the select list. Once the process of marking for the written test, service record and seniority is complete then who have secured qualifying marks prescribed under Sub-para (g) of Para 219, then the candidates are to be arranged in the order of seniority for promotion. Those who secure 80% or more marks are classified as “outstanding” and placed in the panel appropriately in order of their seniority allowing them to supersede not more than 50% of total field of available seats. In other words, persons who secure above 80% marks in aggregate are allowed to supersede their seniors upto 50% of the available posts. Those who secure 80% or more marks are classified as “outstanding” and placed in the panel appropriately in order of their seniority allowing them to supersede not more than 50% of total field of available seats. In other words, persons who secure above 80% marks in aggregate are allowed to supersede their seniors upto 50% of the available posts. However, common thread in the entire process is the emphasis laid down to adjudge the professional ability through written test which has addressed itself to that end and also the possibility of deviation in procedure is not ruled out in certain circumstances. The scheme contained in the IREM is directly related to adjudge the suitability of persons to the requirement of posts for which selection is being made. 38. The other part of the issues raised in this proceeding relates to instructions issued by the Railway Board in relation to recognition of Hindi as an official language and its users in the selection test. In this connection, contentions and arguments have centered around the Railway Board’s circular dated 011.1988 (Annexure 3) filed alongwith the Writ Petition No. 669/2006, Ram Ratan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. It will be profitable to reproduce the relevant provisions, which have bearing on the controversy raised in the writ petition:- “While consolidating various instructions issued by the Board from time to time regarding option of Hindu medium in departmental examinations, it has been decided that the special care should be taken of the following measures in all the departmental examinations:- .(1) Option of Hindi medium should be allowed in all the qualifying and competitive departmental tests, which include technical & non-technical departmental examinations also, conducted by the railway offices located in all the regions ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ irrespective of the fact whether translation of concerned rule books is available or not. It should invariably be made clear to the candidates in the beginning itself i.e. while calling for applications for these examinations that the option of Hindi medium would be allowed in the said examination. However, in departmental examinations conducted for Technical posts, the knowledge of English, wherever necessary, could be ascertained. .(2) In the qualifying and competitive departmental tests conducted for technical and non-technical posts,