Judgment : Heard the arguments of Mr. V.G. Suresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways and the second respondent not appearing either through counsel or personally and the impleaded third respondent appearing as party-in- person and have perused the records. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India, represented by the Chief Personnel Officer Southern Railway, against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27. 1999 made in O.A. No. 760 of 1997 wherein and by which the order dated 24. 1997 passed by the petitioner was set aside and the second respondent was directed to be promoted to the post for which he was selected as a reserved candidate out of the two vacancies which were reserved for SC Candidates. 3. The second respondent was appointed as a Clerk on 06.02.1986 and thereafter, as a Senior Clerk on 13. 1988 and Head Clerk on 26. 1990. During the year 1996, selection to the post of Superintendent Grade II was called for. The selection was in the ratio of 1:3 in terms of the Reservation Rules and the selection process contained a written examination and viva-voce. In the year 1996, six posts for unreserved category and two reserved for SC candidates and one post for ST candidate were called for. Altogether, 18 candidates in the unreserved categories and 6 in the SC category and 2 in the ST category were found eligible. Among them, two candidates in unreserved category, 1 in SC candidate and 1 Candidate in ST category expressed their unwillingness to opt for promotion. To make good the shortfall of two unreserved candidates, one SC candidate was alerted by a letter dated 17. 1996. It was only pursuant to that alert, the second respondent came within the zone of consideration and he was kept third in the list of SC employees. 4. In the written examination held on 28. 1996, only 20 employees attended the main examination and four attended the supplementary examination and there were 2 absentees. After the results were published on 29. 1996, the second respondent was called for viva-voce under the relaxed standard along with five others. The viva-voce was held on 10. 1996 and results were published on 110. 1996. The second respondent was empanelled as Serial No. 8 by a proceeding dated 110. After the results were published on 29. 1996, the second respondent was called for viva-voce under the relaxed standard along with five others. The viva-voce was held on 10. 1996 and results were published on 110. 1996. The second respondent was empanelled as Serial No. 8 by a proceeding dated 110. 1996, which was approved by the Chief Personnel Manager (General) who is the appointing authority. 5. One P. Balakrishnan (impleaded as the third respondent) was called for viva-voce under the relaxed standard. But in the panel, he was shown to have been promoted on his own seniority under the unreserved quota. As soon as this error was noticed, due to the representation received from one Sundarambal (who was a SC candidate), the issue was considered. It was found that three SC candidates were empanelled as against the two vacancies. They were the third respondent and one Thangaraj as well as the second respondent. In order to correct the error in terms of Rule 227 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (IREM), a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 25.02.1997 and after getting his reply on 03. 1997, a final order was passed on 04. 1997. Further, a revised panel was issued on 24. 1997. 6. The Tribunal, without reference to the error, gave a direction stating that the third respondent was selected as against the unreserved quota and, therefore, out of the two SC vacancies, the second respondent was entitled to be empanelled. In page 10 of the order, the Tribunal observed as follows: "The applicant is selected in the reserved vacancy after considering the relative merit of the applicant. Therefore, for no fault of him he should not be deprived of the opportunity of his promotion on the basis of his selection. Even if there is any mistake the applicant is not responsible for the said mistake. Therefore the efforts of his being selected on the basis of the publication of the panel cannot be taken away depriving him of the selection. It is quite uncertainty of what would happen to him in the next selection. Not only his avenues of chances in life to climb to the upper ladder in the cadre will be highly be jeopardised if the selection is not complied with. It is quite uncertainty of what would happen to him in the next selection. Not only his avenues of chances in life to climb to the upper ladder in the cadre will be highly be jeopardised if the selection is not complied with. Therefore the equity and the social justice that has to be meted out to the certain sections on the basis of the constitutional mandate must be construed in favour of the applicant and he must be one out of the two reserved candidates. Therefore the panel must be implemented." 7. According to us, this is not the correct approach in a matter when a ratio was fixed for each category. We have been shown the order dated 24. 1997 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, Chennai wherein the third respondent had been considered only on the relaxed standard and his name was included against the unreserved category. It can only be a clerical mistake. In fact, under Rule 227 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (Vol. I), the procedure for correcting a mistake in the matter of promotion or appointment has been prescribed and the same is as follows: "The orders of notification of promotion or appointment of a railway servant should be cancelled as soon as it is brought to the notice of the appointing authority that such a promotion or appointment has resulted from a factual error and the railway servant concerned, should, immediately on such cancellation, be brought to the position which he should have held but for the incorrect orders of promotion or appointment." 8. Accordingly, a show cause notice was given in terms of the said Rule and after getting approval from the appointing authority, the correction was made. By an order dated 15. 1997, the third respondent was selected and he was given an appointment order. But in view of the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 760 of 1997 filed by the second respondent, the matter was kept in abeyance. During the pendency of the writ petition filed by the Union of India, an interim order staying the Tribunals order was also granted. Therefore, the second respondent, at no point of time, was put in the promoted post pursuant to the order of the Tribunal. We do not think that the second respondent can take advantage of a clerical error which was subsequently duly rectified. Therefore, the second respondent, at no point of time, was put in the promoted post pursuant to the order of the Tribunal. We do not think that the second respondent can take advantage of a clerical error which was subsequently duly rectified. In the name of doing social justice, no clerical error can be either overlooked or a direction be granted to perpetuate a mistake. The approach of the Tribunal is erroneous and it had failed to look into the material records as well as the statutory rules in this regard. 9. In the light of above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The writ petition will stand allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition will stand closed.