Khanna, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave by K. K. Wahi and two others is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court affirming on appeal the decision of the reamed single judge whereby petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by nine petitioners, including the three appellants, to challenge an order about the cancellation of a panel by the Railway Board was only partly allowed.
(2.) The Senior Personnel Officer, Northem Railway notified on May 11, 1970 the names of the nine writ petitioners as having been selected for the posts of computers in the grade of Rs. 335-485. Prior to that date, four of the petitioners were offlciating as computers on ad hoc basis. The fifth petitioner was officiating as head draftsman and the ret maining four petitioners were working as draftsmen. The post of computer was a selection post. The procedure for filling of such a post is given in paragraphs 213 to 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Paragraph 216, which is material for our purposes, reads as under: "216. After the competent authority has accepted the recommendations of the Selection Board, the names of the candidates selected will be notified to the candidates. 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 authority next higher than the one that approved the panel." The Senior Personnel Officer notified on October 30, 1970 the cancellation of the panel relating to the nine petitioners by the Railway Board.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Railway Board, the nine petitoners filed writ petition in the High Court praying for the issuance of a writ for quashing the order dated October 30, 1970. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the power to cancel the panel could be exercised under paragraph 216 reproduced above if it was found that there were procedural irregularities or other defects. There was, it was further submitted, no procedural irregularity or other defect in the selection of the petitioners and as such the cancellation of the panel was not proper. As against that, it was stated on behalf of the railway administration that there had been procedural irregularities and other defects in the selection of the petitioners for the panel. The cancellation of the panel was in the circumstances stated to be not improper.;