Judgment :- ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J - Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.767 of 2007, dated 16.3.2010 as confirmed in Review Application No.11 of 2010 by order dated 23.11.2010, the Railways have come forward with the present writ petition. 2. The facts in brief are as follows :- The Respondents 2 to 5 are working in different categories in Group 'C' service in Madurai Division in Southern Railway and they are entitled for promotion to the post of Goods Guard. According to Para 124(1) of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (in short "the Manual"), the posts in the category of Goods Guards will be filled as under :- "60% by general selection from amongst serving regular employees with a minimum of three years service working in grade(s) Rs.3050-4590/3200-4900 / 4000-6000 in the categories of Train Clerks/Sr. Train Clerks, Commercial Clerks/Sr. Commercial Clerks, Ticket Collectors/Sr. Ticket Collectors, Switch-men, Asstt. Guards/Sr. Asstt. Guards and Yard Staff; 15% by LDCE plus shortfall, if any against (i) above, from amongst serving regular non-ministerial Group 'C' employees with a minimum of three years service, working in grade(s) Rs.3050-4590/3200-4900 / 4000-6000, upto 40 years of age (45 years in the case of SC/ST) and having the qualification of Graduation; and 25% by direct recruitment through Railway Boards plus shortfall, if any, against (ii) above." The 60% stated in para(i) was further made against specified categories vide letter dated 26.10.1999 as follows : 3. As per the proceedings dated 27.9.2006, volunteers from feeder categories, who are eligible were called for the proposed selection. Vide Office Memorandum dated 1.12.2006, 159 eligible employees from different feeder categories were alerted for the selection and further the examination was held on 16.12.2006. As per the proceedings dated 23.1.2007, names of 38 employees, including the Respondents 2 to 5, who have qualified in the written examination, was published. Thereafter, vide Proceedings dated 3.4.2007, 15 employees including the Respondents 2 to 5 were selected and empanelled and they were directed to attend the Training Course preceding appointment to the post of Goods Guard from 09.04.2007 to 30.05.2007. When the respondents 2 to 5 were waiting for posting orders, they were served with a show cause regarding redrawal of the panel from the stage of written examination results on the ground of irregularity of non-application of prescribed percentage for different categories and awarding of marks for seniority. When the respondents 2 to 5 were waiting for posting orders, they were served with a show cause regarding redrawal of the panel from the stage of written examination results on the ground of irregularity of non-application of prescribed percentage for different categories and awarding of marks for seniority. Aggrieved against the redrawal, the respondents submitted representations and the same were rejected by order dated 18.7.2007. After rejection of the representations, the petitioners released the redrawn panel vide proceedings dated 29.9.2007, in which the Respondents 2 to 5 were replaced by four others and they were excluded from the amended panel. This made the Respondents 2 to 5 to approach the Tribunal by filing the Original Application. 4. It was the stand of the petitioners before the Tribunal that while preparing the selection chart, inadvertently, weightage of 20 marks was given under the heading seniority, but such marks should not have been given in the case of selection post and, secondly, that the panel was not drawn as per the percentage allotted for each category. 5. Considering the contentions raised and going through the materials on record, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application by observing that the dispute did not arise between the feeder categories to the effect that the quota Rule was not followed strictly and no grievance was raised by any particular category of the employees and, while making the short fall good, instead of following the integrated seniority, the employees of a particular category were selected based on the marks secured by them in the written statement for which the respondents cannot be held responsible. Ultimately, the Tribunal granted the relief as prayed for by the present Respondents 2 to 5. Subsequently, the petitioners preferred Review Appln.No.11 of 2010 to review the order passed in O.A.No.767 of 2007, dated 16.3.2010. The said Review Application was rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 23.11.2010 as it could not find any error apparent on the face or record. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed by the Railways. 6. Subsequently, the petitioners preferred Review Appln.No.11 of 2010 to review the order passed in O.A.No.767 of 2007, dated 16.3.2010. The said Review Application was rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 23.11.2010 as it could not find any error apparent on the face or record. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed by the Railways. 6. Learned Senior Counsel reiterated the contentions raised before the Tribunal and vehemently contended that since the first selection list prepared on 7.3.2007 has suffered from irregularities such as awarding 20 marks towards seniority and the list was not in accordance with the percentage allotted towards each category, it has been set right in the second selection list prepared on 29.9.2007. The Tribunal, without considering those irregularities, ought not to have given a direction for including the name of the present Respondents 2 to 5. 7. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents supporting the order of the Tribunal contended that the Tribunal considering the entire facts of the case and the fact that the entire selection did not exceed 60% of the quota among various categories, came to a well considered conclusion that the Respondents ought not to have been excluded and, since such finding has met the ends of justice, it should not be interfered with. 8. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5 and perused the materials on record. 9. We have carefully gone through the averments made by the petitioners in this writ petition as well as in the reply statement filed before the Tribunal and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the entire selection process did not exceed 60% of the quota amongst various categories. It is further not in dispute that the first panel was drawn by considering the marks secured in the written test and the employees selected on the basis of marks obtained, including the present Respondents 2 to 5, were sent for training and they are awaiting for their posting orders. Para 124(1) of the Manual provides the mode of filling up the post of Goods guard. As per which, 60% has been earmarked to four categories of posts in the ratio of 30%, 15%, 10% and 5%. Para 124(1) of the Manual provides the mode of filling up the post of Goods guard. As per which, 60% has been earmarked to four categories of posts in the ratio of 30%, 15%, 10% and 5%. According to the contesting respondents, 38 candidates were selected amongst the aforesaid 60% ratio and, therefore, there is no need for redrawing the old panel. The stand of the Department was that they had received a representation about the irregularities / defects said to have taken place and accordingly the panel was redrawn. On the aforesaid background of facts, the Tribunal held that the contesting respondents had not made any claim seeking promotion in excess than the quota ear-marked for them and since the entire process did not exceed 60% quota, while making good the loss, the shortfall in a particular category, inadvertently discrepancies had crept in to which the selected candidates cannot be held responsible. We are in full agreement with the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, on the scrutiny of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the contesting respondents cannot be blamed for becoming excess in a particular category. The Rule itself prescribes that while making good the loss, the shortfall in a particular category could be considered. Moreover, in the case on hand, the contesting respondents have secured qualifying marks and therefore it cannot be said that they are not meritorious or unqualified. The redrawing of second panel on the strength of integrated seniority could have been followed in the subsequent selection instead of the selection in question and while redrawing the second panel, the petitioners should have considered the persons who are already selected been adjusted instead of excluding them. 11. Apart from the aforesaid reasons given by the Tribunal, one staring fact on the face could not be brushed aside. Para 219(1) of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual deals regarding the cancellation / amendment of panel after the approval of the competent authority, which is as follows :- "After the competent authority has accepted the recommendations of the Selection Board, the names of candidates selected will be notified to the candidates. A panel once approved should normally not be cancelled or amended. A panel once approved should normally not be cancelled or amended. If after the formation and announcement of the panel with the approval of the competent authority it is found subsequently that there were procedural irregularities or other defects and it is considered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel, this should be done after obtaining the approval of the authority next higher than the one that approved the panel." 12. In order to ascertain the fact that whether the redrawn second panel was approved by the authority next higher than the one that approved the earlier panel, we have gone through the entire papers on record. It is not asserted in any of the paragraphs of the reply filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal that the approval was obtained from the authority next higher than the one that approved the earlier first panel. On the other hand, it is stated that the first petitioner having examined the matter advised the second respondent for re-drawal of the panel in accordance with the instructions contained in the third respondent's letter dated 18.5.2007, but not as per the provisions contained in Para 219(1) of the Manual. Moreover, in the reply it was indicated that on the representation from one of the organised labour, the earlier panel was cancelled, but nothing was disclosed about the contents of the representation. Further it is to be noted that two of the Members who drew the first panel dated 7.3.2007, viz., the Senior Promotional Officer, Madurai and the DOM., Madurai were also the Members of the second panel dated 29.9.2007 and we do not know as to how they were ignorant of the provisions of the Manual and the allocation of 20 marks on the basis of seniority before drawing the first panel and no explanation has been forthcoming for such lapses on the part of the authorities. 13. Taking into consideration the overall view of the matter, we do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and it is accordingly confirmed. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.