Judgment ( 1. ) WRIT petition has been preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by Order (P. 1) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 643/1996 and oa No. 731/96 decided on 25th day of July,2002. ( 2. ) THE case of petitioners was that they were promoted on adhoc basis as head TTE (HTTE) in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 , they were given adhoc promotion to the post of HTTE with effect from 28. 4. 95, initially for four months against regular vacancies and have continued thereafter. They were called to appear in the written test for formation of panel for the post of HTTE. They appeared in the written test held on 23. 12. 95 and 30. 12. 95 and were declared passed vide notice dated 19. 4. 96. Thereafter they appeared in the viva voce test test held on 12th and 13. 6. 96. The respondents 1 to 3 have promoted 20 TTEs to the post of HTTE and reverted the applicants to their original post of TTE on the ground that they have not qualified in the viva voce test. ( 3. ) THE stand of respondents 1 to 3 was that on 28. 4. 95 adhoc promotion was ordered, they were not subjected to any suitability test, though they have passed in the written test and they stood at serial no. 9 and 16 respectively in the written test, but they failed in interview. Final results were declared on 31. 7. 96, they made representation on 14. 8. 96, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, their case will be considered in future if required. The Tribunal has dismissed the application. Dissatisfied thereby the writ petition has been preferred. ( 4. ) SHRI M. R. Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has relied upon circular dated 25. 1. 1976 para 2. 2. which provides that panels should be formed for selection posts in time to avoid adhoc promotions. Care should be taken to see while forming panels that employees who have been working in the posts on adhoc basis quite satisfactorily are not declared unsuitable in the interview. In particular any employee reaching the field of consideration should be saved from harassment. Learned counsel has also relied upon decision of Apex Court rendered in SLP (C) No. 9866/1993 (R. C. Shrivastava vs. Union of India and another ). ( 5. In particular any employee reaching the field of consideration should be saved from harassment. Learned counsel has also relied upon decision of Apex Court rendered in SLP (C) No. 9866/1993 (R. C. Shrivastava vs. Union of India and another ). ( 5. ) SHRI Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondent has submitted that all the juniors have not been arrayed as parties to the petition. He has also referred to the instructions instructions dated 9. 8. 1982. In his submission by instructions dated 9. 8. 1982, the circular dated 25. 1. 1976 has been diluted. ( 6. ) IT is stated at Bar that. petitioners have been promoted later on to the post of htte from the post of TTE. Question remains that of seniority. Some other juniors have been impleaded as respondents. As question is of seniority only and the persons who were likely to be affected have been arrayed as parties, we are not inclined to accept the submission of Shri Upadhyay that petition suffers with non-joinder of necessary parties. Question for consideration is whether the instructions contained in para 2. 2 of the circular dated 25. 1. 1976 are binding. Para 2. 2 is quoted below :- "2. 2 Panels should be formed for selection posts in time to avoid adhoc promotions. Care should be taken to see while forming panels that employees who have been working in the posts on adhoc basis quite satisfactorily are not declared unsuitable in the interview. In particular any employee reaching the field of consideration should be saved from harassment. " The decision of Apex Court in R. C. Shrivastavas case (supra) has been relied upon in which the aforesaid circular has been taken into consideration. The Apex Court has held thus :- "the Tribunal rejected the said contention of the appellant on the ground that the circular dated March 19,1976 is a recorded note of the meeting of the Deputy Minister for Railways and the railway Board with the Head Quarters of the Personnel Department of the Railway Administration and that it cannot have statutory force. Shri V. C. Mahajan, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents, supported the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and has submitted that the circular dated March 19,1976 can not cover ride the statutory rules, since the circular is in the nature of an administrative direction only. Shri V. C. Mahajan, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents, supported the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and has submitted that the circular dated March 19,1976 can not cover ride the statutory rules, since the circular is in the nature of an administrative direction only. It is no doubt true that a circular of the Railway Board cannot over ride a statutory rule but a circular, which is in the nature of administrative direction can certainly supplement the rules on matters on which, the rules are silent. A reading of the circular dated March 19,1976 would show that it does not run contrary to any statutory rule. Indeed, the said circular only gives guidance in the matter of exercise of the power by the selection committee, while considering the suitability at the stage of interview and says that a person who has been working on the post for which selection is being made, on adhoc basis and whose work is quite satisfactory, should not be declared unsuitable in the interview. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that this direction is inconsistent with any statutory rule. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the said direction in the circular dated March 19,1976 is inconsistent with any statutory rule. " In other cases also the Tribunal has granted the relief such as OA No. 211/1995 (Moolchand and others vs. Union of India and others) decided on 13th march,2001. Circular dated 9. 8. 82 has been relied upon by Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6, which is quoted below :- " It would appear that the instructions referred to above have led to the normal rules and procedure of selection as contained in the Indian Railways Establishment Manual and other cognate orders issued from time to time not being followed in some cases. With a view to ensuring that such departures do not take place, it is hereby clarified that the intention of the instructions conveyed in the Boards letter of 25. 1. With a view to ensuring that such departures do not take place, it is hereby clarified that the intention of the instructions conveyed in the Boards letter of 25. 1. 1976 referred to above was not to bypass or supersede in any manner, the normal rules of selection as contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and other orders issued from time to time but only to serve as a broad guideline for the Departmental Promotion Committees and the authorities who are required to consider and approve employees for promotion. In any case, there was no intention to confer any right on employees officiating on adhoc basis in higher posts to be selected and included in the panels for these posts. You are requested to issue instructions to all concerned accordingly. ". On bare reading of decision of Apex Court makes it clear that instructions contained in circular dated 25. 1. 1976 in para 2. 2 which are referred to in Circular (P. 9) No. 211/1982 has been held to be binding. There is no escape from the conclusion that decision of the Apex Court has to be respected. Even otherwise, aforesaid para 2 of circular no. 211/1982 does not dilute the provisions made in para 2. 2 of the circular dated 25. 1. 1976 in any manner whatsoever. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the relief prayed for by them as they have also been promoted as HTTE during pendency of the instant matter. It is clear from the circular dated 25. 1. 1976 that the incumbents working on the adhoc post could not be left out on the basis of viva voce test after they have cleared the written examination and it is hot the case that they were not entitled otherwise. The question remains that of seniority, that shall be accorded to them from the day from which their juniors were promoted. ( 7. ) WRIT petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. No costs. Petition allowed.