JUDGMENT : Dipankar Datta, J. 1. The original applicants in OA 335 of 2008, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Kolkata (hereafter the tribunal), are the petitioners in this writ petition. They are aggrieved because the tribunal has dismissed the original application by a judgment and order dated June 27, 2012 for the reasons assigned therein. 2. The short question that arises for decision on this writ petition is, are the petitioners entitled to claim regularization of their promotional appointments made in the year 1988, despite the fact that such appointments were purely temporary and against a particular estimate, valid for period of 60 days, which has continued uninterruptedly for 20 years (as on date the tribunal was approached)? 3. Narration of the facts leading to presentation of the original application as a prelude to our decision would be apt. 4. The first petitioner and the second petitioner, prior to the order dated March 24, 1988 were serving the respondents as Stenographer and Clerk, respectively. The Divisional Personnel Officer (I/C), Sealdah, Eastern Railways, by a note dated February 15, 1988 informed all ministerial staff of the Signal and Telecommunication Department, Sealdah, of a decision to form panels for one post of Console Operator in the scale of Rs.1600 - 26,660/- and one post of Data Entry Operator in the scale of Rs.1350 - 20,200/-, and that applications were invited from ministerial staff including Stenographers and Typists pertaining to S & T Department, who are one grade below, through proper channel so as to reach latest by February 22, 1988. It was also notified that on scrutiny of the applications, a selection was likely to be held on February 25, 1988 for which the eligible willing candidates were asked to keep themselves ready to appear thereat. 5. The petitioners participated in the selection. By the order dated March 24, 1988, referred to above, the Divisional Personnel Officer, Sealdah notified promotion of the first petitioner and the second petitioner on the post of Console Operator and Data Entry Operator, respectively, upon them being found capable therefor. They were informed that it was purely a temporary measure against sanctioned estimate no. By the order dated March 24, 1988, referred to above, the Divisional Personnel Officer, Sealdah notified promotion of the first petitioner and the second petitioner on the post of Console Operator and Data Entry Operator, respectively, upon them being found capable therefor. They were informed that it was purely a temporary measure against sanctioned estimate no. 11/DSTE of 87-88 for a period of 60 days on ad hoc basis, that the promotions would not confer any right on them for future promotion, and that "the competent authority may discontinue such officiation without assigning any reason at any moment". 6. The petitioners continued to discharge duties attached to the posts of Console Operator and Data Entry Operator for almost 10 years without any break (except for a brief period when the first petitioner was sent on deputation to Iraq), although in terms of the order dated March 24, 1988, they were required to officiate as promotees, as a temporary measure, for 60 days. 7. On or about July 15, 1998, the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah, invited applications from willing staff for filling up various posts which, inter alia, included the posts of Senior Console Operator/Console Operator and Senior Data Entry Operator/Data Entry Operator. It was mentioned therein that preference would be given to the staff who are already working in Divisional Computer Cell, Sealdah, having regular attendance. Instead of making applications in response to the invitation contained in the letter dated July 15, 1998, the petitioners separately addressed commonly worded representations dated July 22, 1998 to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealdah. By his representation, the first petitioner requested that he may be included in the new EDP Centre and provided one grade higher, i.e., Senior Console Operator/Data Processing Superintendent/ IOS in the scale of Rs.2,000 - 3,200/-. Similarly the second petitioner requested that he may be included in the new EDP Centre and provided one grade higher, i.e., Console Operator/General Superintendent in the scale of Rs.1,600 - 2,660/-. In such representations, the petitioners had contended that they had duly qualified for appointments on the posts of Console Operator/Data Entry Operator upon clearing aptitude and viva-voce test and having regard to the fact that they were serving to the entire satisfaction of their superiors for the last 10 years, they were entitled to the benefit that they claimed. 8. In such representations, the petitioners had contended that they had duly qualified for appointments on the posts of Console Operator/Data Entry Operator upon clearing aptitude and viva-voce test and having regard to the fact that they were serving to the entire satisfaction of their superiors for the last 10 years, they were entitled to the benefit that they claimed. 8. The prayers of the petitioners stood rejected, whereupon they submitted further representations separately on August 31, 1998. The representations were, however, not considered. 9. On October 5, 1999 and January 22, 2000, amendments were effected in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-1, 1989 (hereafter 'the Manual', for short). By advance correction slip no.79, a note was required to be inserted below sub-para 1 of para 178-A to the following effect : "Note : Such of the staff as have worked satisfactorily for two years as Data Entry Operators need not be subjected to Aptitude Test if they are otherwise eligible for consideration for posting/promotion on ex-cadre basis as Sr. Data Entry Operator. (Authority: Ministry of Railway's letter No. B(NC) I-98/ 16/2 dated 28.05.1999). INDEX NO. 1028: Aptitude Test for Data Entry Operators is not required for posting/promotion on ex-cadre satisfactorily for two years. Amendment to IRA, Vol.1 (1989), Chapter I, Sec.'B' ". Similar insertion was required by advance correction slip no. 86, reading as follows: "Note: Such of the staff as have worked satisfactorily for two years as Console Operators need not be subjected to fresh Aptitude Test if they are otherwise eligible for consideration for posting/promotion on ex-cadre basis as Sr. Console Operators. (Authority : Ministry of Railway's letter No.3 (NG)I-99/PM16/2 dated 28.7.1999)". 10. Since the respondents were not taking steps to regularize the petitioners' promotion, they approached the tribunal by presenting OA 503 of 2001. They prayed for, inter alia, the following relief: "(i.) An order declaring the posts of Console Operator (1600-2600) and Data Entry Operator (1350-2200) are permanent posts and the applicants are permanent incumbent for the said posts. (ii.) An order directing the respondents to consider the promotion of applicant no.1 to the post of Sr. Console Operator in scale of Rs.2000-3200/- and that of applicant no.2 to the post of Sr. Data Entry operator etc. in scale of Rs.1400-2300/- within a period of three months". 11. (ii.) An order directing the respondents to consider the promotion of applicant no.1 to the post of Sr. Console Operator in scale of Rs.2000-3200/- and that of applicant no.2 to the post of Sr. Data Entry operator etc. in scale of Rs.1400-2300/- within a period of three months". 11. Oa 503 of 2001 was disposed of by the tribunal on January 22, 2008 with a direction upon the Divisional Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah, to decide the petitioners' claim by giving due priority and arriving at a decision within a period of 3 months. 12. Acting in compliance with the tribunal's order, the said divisional railway manager considered their claims and rejected the same by his order dated March 19, 2008. Relevant portions of the said order read as follows: "I have examined the case thoroughly and find that the applicant No.1 is Stenographer and applicant No.2 is Clerk/Gr.II both of them are working under Sr.DSTE/Sealdah. They have filed the court case seeking relief for promotion to the post of Console Operator in scale Rs. 1600-2660/-(RP). It is seen that both the staff are working as Console Operator and Data Entry Operator respectively against purely on temporary measure on ad hoc basis for a period of 60 days with clear stipulation that this does not confer any right for future promotion and arrangement may be discontinued without any reason vide DPO's letter No.E-1/UPG/SIG/84 dated 24.03.88. Subsequently, option was floated for filling up both the above posts but the applicants submitted appeal for selecting them rather than submitting an option. As per laid down rules, promotion to the post of both Data Entry Operator and Console Operator is to be done by calling option from eligible candidates through a process of selection. The applicants were also replied vide letter of even no. dated 20.01.98. Hence, in view of the above I find that your claims are not tenable and cannot be considered". 13. This order of the Divisional Manager was challenged by the petitioners in OA 355 of 2008. The applicants were also replied vide letter of even no. dated 20.01.98. Hence, in view of the above I find that your claims are not tenable and cannot be considered". 13. This order of the Divisional Manager was challenged by the petitioners in OA 355 of 2008. Therein, the petitioners prayed for the following relief: "(b) An order and/or direction do issue declaring the said impugned order No.E-1/Court case/503/2001 dated 19.03.2008 passed by Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah, as contained in Annexure-'A13' herein, as bad in law and further direct the said Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah, being the respondent No.3 herein to regularize the promotion of the applicants to the post of Console Operator and Data Entry Operator respectively with effect from the date of such promotion by allowing all the benefits including arrear pay and allowances to the said posts, in favour of the writ applicants herein within a reasonable period of time and upon such declaration being made direct for further promotion to the next higher post in accordance with law". 14. The tribunal held that the original applicants before it were claiming regularization on posts which had not been filled up by the respondents as per the recruitment rules and their appointments were in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision reported in: Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 . It further held that the order dated March 24, 1988 by which the petitioners were appointed did not meet the criteria laid down in Umadevi (supra), and that an order for discharging certain functions for a period of 60 days against posts, sanctioned by way of estimates temporarily, cannot be termed as regular recruitment against posts. The tribunal also held that mere length of service in a purely temporary post cannot create any right to be regularized at all. For such reasons, the original application stood dismissed. 15. We have heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the respondents in support of the claims and counter-claims raised before us. 16. In course of hearing, Mr. Chatterjee was heard to submit that the first petitioner has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and the second petitioner is also on the verge of retirement. 17. Ganguly, learned advocate for the respondents in support of the claims and counter-claims raised before us. 16. In course of hearing, Mr. Chatterjee was heard to submit that the first petitioner has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and the second petitioner is also on the verge of retirement. 17. The plinth of the petitioners' claims was that they had been working as Console Operator and Data Entry Operator for almost two decades to the entire satisfaction of their superiors but they had not been regularized on such posts on the specious ground that their initial promotional appointment was purely temporary and against a sanctioned estimate, i.e., there was no regular post. However, applications were invited vide letter dated July 15, 1998 from willing staff, inter alia, for filling up ex-cadre posts of Senior Console Operator/Console Operator and Senior Data Entry Operator/Data Entry Operator in the EDP Centre of Sealdah Division. The petitioners, admittedly, did not submit what the respondents' termed as 'option' but claimed regularization as Console Operator /Data Entry Operator. Subsequently, with the amendments effected in the Manual, they renewed their prayer but in vain. 18. In paragraph 4(j) of the original application, the petitioners referred to the amendments effected in the Manual in support of the contention that such of the staff, who had worked satisfactorily for over 2 years as Console Operator/Data Entry Operator, need not be subjected to fresh aptitude test if they are eligible for consideration for posting/promotion on ex-cadre basis as Senior Console Operator/Senior Data Entry Operator. 19. In the reply affidavit filed by the respondents before the tribunal, paragraph 4(j) was dealt with in paragraph 9. The entirety of paragraph 9 is set out below: "With reference to paragraphs 4(h) to 4(p) of the said application, the respondents state that the applicants are not entitled to regular absorption/promotion as they have not submitted any option when they were called for by the Administration". 20. It is, therefore, seen that the petitioners' claims were sought to be countered only on the ground that they did not submit any option pursuant to the letter dated July 15, 1998 and take part in the selection test. However, there was no averment regarding non-applicability of the amendments to their claims seeking further promotion to the posts of Senior Console Operator/Senior Data Entry Operator. However, there was no averment regarding non-applicability of the amendments to their claims seeking further promotion to the posts of Senior Console Operator/Senior Data Entry Operator. Although there is a single averment in the counter affidavit filed before us that such amendments do not apply, no reason has been assigned in support thereof. 21. The provisions of the Manual do have statutory force, as held in the decision dated September 7, 2018 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9176 of 2018: Prabhat Ranjan Singh vs. R.K. Kushwaha. If indeed two years' satisfactory service as Console Operator/Data Entry Operator could result in the incumbents not being liable to face aptitude test for promotion to the posts of Senior Console Operator/Senior Data Entry Operator if they were otherwise eligible, we fail to comprehend as to why despite being found capable in a process of selection conducted by the respondents and despite having put in 20 years' service without the aid of any order of Court/tribunal, the petitioners should be denied any relief whatsoever on application of the principles of law laid down in Umadevi (3) (supra) which, in any event, dealt with initial appointments made through the back-door and not promotional appointments made pursuant to a process of selection, albeit on posts sanctioned on estimates. No reason appears to have been assigned as to why the petitioners were not reverted to their substantive posts and/or why was it considered necessary to continue them as Console Operator/Data Entry Operator for so long. 22. There is only a solitary reference to the word 'officiation' in the order dated March 24, 1988. It has spelt out that the competent authority may discontinue the officiation of the petitioners without assigning any reason at any moment. Law is too well-settled by the Supreme Court that a Government servant is allowed to officiate on a post if the permanent incumbent is not available having gone on leave or being away for some other reason, or to test his suitability to be made permanent later on. The servant officiating on a post has no right to continue thereon for all time. He holds the officiating post on the implied term that he will be liable to be reverted if his work is found unsatisfactory or the permanent incumbent has returned for resumption of work. 23. The servant officiating on a post has no right to continue thereon for all time. He holds the officiating post on the implied term that he will be liable to be reverted if his work is found unsatisfactory or the permanent incumbent has returned for resumption of work. 23. In the present case, it was not an implied term but an express term that the petitioners' officiation could be discontinued at any moment. True it is, initially the post was sanctioned against an estimate for 60 days but what stands out is this: first, the petitioners were continued for 10 years till the letter dated July 15, 1998 inviting applications; secondly, notwithstanding issuance of the letter dated July 15, 1998, they were continued till date of presentation of OA 355 of 2008; and thirdly, also thereafter during its pendency. Having regard to such length of service, it could have been the case of the respondents that the petitioners' services were unsatisfactory. There were also no prior incumbents on the post of Console Operator/Data Entry Operator. Reverting the petitioners to the posts held by them before March 24, 1988, thus, did not arise and so an inference can legitimately be drawn why they were not reverted. 24. Though the Manual had not been amended as on July 15, 1998 when applications were invited but having regard to the fact that the amendments came into force on October 5, 1999/January 22, 2000, the respondents ought to have considered the petitioners' claims having regard to the meritorious service rendered by them since March 24, 1988 and given them the benefit thereof, meaning thereby not a further promotion as Senior Console Operator/Senior Data Entry Operator but regularization as Console Operator/Data Entry Operator. 25. Reliance was aptly placed by Mr. Chatterjee on the decision reported in : Baleswar Dass and ors. vs. State of UP and ors, (1981) AIR SC 41. It was held therein that when appointments are made on temporary posts but after fulfillment of all the tests for regular appointments, they must be held to be appointments in a substantive capacity; and merely because the person is a temporary appointee, it cannot be said that he is not substantively appointed if he fulfills the necessary conditions for regular promotion. 26. 26. We may in the context of reliance placed by the tribunal on Umadevi (3) (supra) refer to the decision reported in : State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 , cited by Mr. Chatterjee. Explaining the difference between an illegal appointment and an irregular appointment, it was held as under: "7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularisation" enunciated in Umadevi (3), if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular." 27. M.L. Kesari (supra) has been followed by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decisions reported in : Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265 and: Narendra Kumar Tiwari & ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & ors, (2018) 8 SCC 238 . These decisions have also been brought to our notice by Mr. Chatterjee. 28. Going by the test for distinguishing an irregular appointment from an illegal appointment, we hold that even if the ratio of Umadevi (3) (supra) were applicable here, it was not a case of illegal appointment of the petitioners through the backdoor on promotion as Console Operator/Data Entry Operator. 29. We are, accordingly, of the view that the petitioners having been appointed on being found capable to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached to the posts of Console Operator/Data Entry Operator, reference to Umadevi (3) (supra) by the tribunal for dismissing the original application was misplaced. 29. We are, accordingly, of the view that the petitioners having been appointed on being found capable to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached to the posts of Console Operator/Data Entry Operator, reference to Umadevi (3) (supra) by the tribunal for dismissing the original application was misplaced. However, not having opted in terms of the letter dated July 15, 1998, we hold that the petitioners are not entitled to promotion to the posts of Senior Console Operator/Senior Data Entry Operator. 30. Thus, the impugned order of the tribunal and the order dated March 19, 2008 passed by the Divisional Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah are set aside. We direct that there shall be an order in terms of the first part of prayer (b) of the original application, meaning thereby that the petitioners shall be entitled to regularization as Console Operator/Data Entry Operator with effect from March 24, 1988 and also entitled to financial benefits attached to such post right from their initial appointments. Retiral benefits shall be calculated for the first petitioner as if he retired from service as Console Operator. Of course, the second petitioner's retiral benefits shall be calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn by him either as Data Entry Operator, or any other promotional post which he might occupy. The petitioners are, however, not entitled to any other benefit of further promotion as Senior Console Operator/Senior Data Entry Operator. 31. We hope and trust that the petitioners shall be extended all the benefits as early as possible, but not later than 4 months from date of service of a copy of this judgment and order on the respondents. 32. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent mentioned above. However, there shall be no order for costs.