Judgement

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.: This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which affirmed the judgment of a Single Judge of that Court. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows

2. The appellant had been in the service of North Eastern Railway holding the substantive post of Travelling Ticket Examiner. The post of Travelling Ticket Inspector, which is the next higher post, is a selection post. Selection is made by a Selection Board in accordance with the Promotion and Selection Rules (Non-Gazetted) framed under para 158 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I (hereinafter referred to as the rules). Every year, an assessment of the number of vacancies that are likely to occur during that year is made. The Chief Commercial Superintendent is the appointing authority for the post of Ticket Inspectors. In accordance with R. 8 (7), eligible staff, upto four times the number of anticipated vacancies, shall be called up for written and viva voce tests. After the examination and the interview, the Board prepares a panel and promotions are made from the said panel.

3. In the year 1959, a Selection Board for preparing a panel for the ex-Muzaffarpur region was constituted. There were, during that year, eight existing vacancies which were to be filled up immediately. In addition, a panel of six was required to be drawn up. It was also expected that there would be nine more vacancies on account of upgrading of posts but this did not actually materialise. But, due to an incorrect assessment of the anticipated number of vacancies, 92 persons were called up for examination, whereas 56 persons should have been called up for written and viva voce tests.

4. There was a written examination on February 22, 1959 and March 31, 1959, and thereafter the Selection Board interviewed the candidates. As a result of the examination and the viva voce test, the Selection Board prepared a panel of fourteen persons and the appellant was given the twelfth rank in the panel. He was posted as officiating Travelling Ticket Inspector on or about July 28, 1960. The final list of persons brought on the panel was published in the Railway Gazette on January 1, 1961 and the appellant was shown at serial No. 13 in that panel. But a note was appended to the notification stating that the selection of the appellant and five others was provisional.

5. By a letter dated September 29, 1961, the Chief Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, under the orders of the General Manager, the prescribed authority, deleted the name of the appellant and five others who were shown at serial Nos. 9 to 14 in the panel.

6. On November 28, 1961, the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, impugning the validity of the order dated September 29, 1961 in and by which his name had been removed from the panel. He contended that the deletion of his name from the panel indefinitely postponed his right of promotion and therefore, amounted to a reduction in rank.

7. The respondents contested the petition. They averred that the name of the appellant was deleted from the panel in accordance with rules, that he had no subsisting right to the post only by reason of the fact that his name was included in the panel, that the appellant and five other persons were called up for examination on an incorrect assessment of the number of vacancies. It was also contended for the respondents that the provisions of Art. 311 were not attracted.

8. By judgment dated March 14, 1963, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. He held that the deletion of the appellant s name from the panel did not amount to reduction in rank under Art. 311 and that therefore, he was not entitled to the notice prescribed by that article. The learned Judge also held that the appellant had not established that the decision of the respon