The General Manager of State-managed Railways has the power to delegate his powers, including the power to sanction increments above efficiency bars, to authorities subordinate to him.

( 1 ) THIS is a Rule issued upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue directing them to forbear from giving effect to the orders mentioned in the petition.

( 2 ) THE facts are briefly as follows: The petitioner is officiating as the Assistant Personnel Officer Eastern Railway Sealdah. The post is included in the lower Gazetted Service and as such, falls under Class II of the Railway Services. He started officiating in the Lower Gazetted Service of the Engineering Department on 12th November 1938 and was transferred to the personnel officer on 7th December 1946. The progressive increase in his pay may be charted as follows:

( 3 ) RS. 275-25-500-E. B.-30-650-E. B.-50-300/ -. The increment takes place according to a time schedule. It will however be observed that there are two efficiency bars, one after he has been drawing Rs. 500/- and the other after he has been drawing Rs. 650/- per month. Besides the above, he is entitled to draw compensatory and dearness allowance, but we are not concerned with the same.

( 4 ) THE due date of the petitioner's crossing of the first efficiency bar was on or about the 2nd June 1951. On that date he was examined by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel Mr. Carmody), but failed to qualify himself. His increment was thereupon stopped by the General Manager for six months, presumably to give him an opportunity of qualifying himself once again.

( 5 ) ON the 5th March 1952, the petitioner appeared in another test before Mr. Carmody and Mr. P. C. Vaish, his successor-in-office. This time he v/as successful and declared fit. He was in consequence granted an increment from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 530/- p. m. with effect from 6th March 1952. Pursuant to this, the Chief Accounts officer Eastern Railway, certified the increased pay. The General Manager (Opposite party No. 3) however refused to accept the results of the efficiency test and ordered that the petitioner should appear for a test by a Committee of the heads of the departments presided over by the General Manager himself. On the 30th May 1952, the petitioner was given notice that he should have to appear before a Committee consisting of the Chief Engineer and the Chief Electrical Engineer, and presided over by the General Manager himself. He was granted one month's time so that he could prepare himself for the test. The petitioner attacks this order as being illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction. On the 13th June 1952, the petitioner appealed to the Director, Establishment Railway Board, New Delhi. On the 23rd June 1952, it was intimated to the petitioner that he must appear before the Committee in a test on a date to be shortly fixed. Thereupon this rule was taken out. The opposite parties have been restrained from carrying out the test, pending this application.

( 6 ) IT is as well to state now that the scope of such an application as this is indeed a very limited one. This Court can only investigate as to whether the law has been observed. The Railways are now nationalised and are run by the Govern-ment. There are elaborate rules which had been promulgated by the Governor-General-in-Council under Sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act 1935, condensed into Codes. I have only to see that these rules have not been violated. If however any 'administrative error' has been committed, I cannot remedy that. This Court cannot interfere in the day-to-day administration of the Railways.

( 7 ) LEARNED Advocate for either side have placed the rules before me at great length. In the concluding stages, Mr. Sariyal appearing on behalf of the opposite parties raised a very interesting point as to whether the Railway-Board has at all been invested with the power to make rules regarding the conduct of railway employees. This larger question seems to me to require a more exhaustive consideration than is called for in this application. As I am able to decide the application without decidin