Judgement P. V. B. RAO, J. :- The petitioner files this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ on the opposite party in the nature of certiorari or passing any other order quashing the order of the Collector of Ganjamdated 29-8-49 reducing the petitioner from his permanent post of an upper division clerk to that of a lower division clerk and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to hold his substantive permanent post of upper division clerk and to his pay and allowances in the time scale with effect from 9-4-46 with the usual promotions. 2. The petitioners case is briefly as follows : He was appointed as a lower division clerk in the Ganjam Collectorate on 16-6-37 and was confirmed as such in or about 1939. Subsequently on 9-6-46, he was promoted as an upper division clerk and was confirmed in that post on the very same date. He was also promoted to work in the selection grade as a selection grade clerk from 9-6-46 to 18-10-49 and earned two increments in the selection grade in the revised scales of pay introduced from 1-4-47. His confirmation as an upper division clerk was made after the authorities were satisfied that he was duly qualified for the post, he having passed the required departmental tests and undergone the required one years course as Revenue Inspector under the rules in the ex-Madras area, and as required under the Collectors proceedings dated 8-12-45. The promotion of the petitioner land four others to the post of an upper division clerk and to the selection grade was the subject-matter of an interpellation in the Legislative Assembly wherein the then Honble Chief Minister of Orissa, stated that the appointment and pro motion were in order, and that there was no contravention of any of the rules. After a lapse of three years by an order dated 29-3-49, the Collector of Ganjam intimated to the petitioner that his confirmation had been cancelled as on a close examination of these confirmations it had been found that they were irregular and not in strict accordance with the rules. After a lapse of three years by an order dated 29-3-49, the Collector of Ganjam intimated to the petitioner that his confirmation had been cancelled as on a close examination of these confirmations it had been found that they were irregular and not in strict accordance with the rules. The petitioner then appealed and made several representations to the Board of Revenue and to the Government to restore him to his upper division post, but he was intimated on, 22-9-51 the decision arrived at in the matter in question by the Government, to the effect that his confirmation along with some others was thoroughly examined and as those confirmations were irregular and not in accordance with the rules and were made in supersession of the claims of other senior clerks, the confirmations were cancelled. He made representation to the Board of Revenue which was also rejected. The final rejection of his representation is dated 26-8-52. The petitioner further alleged that his reduction from the rank of a permanent upper division clerk to that of a lower division clerk was contrary to Art. 311 of the Constitution as he was not given any opportunity at all to show cause for such reduction and as no charges were framed against him and it was also contrary to the rules in force. 3. The opposite party opposed the application and filed an affidavit of the Collector of Ganjam stating that the petitioners case was not covered by Art. 311 of the Constitution and that his application was filed after a considerable delay of more than two years; that his confirmation was cancelled as he was confirmed as an upper division clerk contrary to the rules in force at the time of confirmation and that the action taken by the Collector and the Board of Revenue was an administrative act and did not amount to any punishment inflicted on the petitioner and consequently he was not entitled to a writ in the nature of certiorari and that this Court cannot cancel the orders Passed against the petitioner, in the usual course of official business. 4. 4. There is no doubt, from a review of the enclosures filed along with the petition and the affidavit on behalf of the opposite party, that there was a great deal of bungling on the part of the authorities from the Collector right upto the Chief Minister of the State in this matter. The Collector admits in his affidavit that the relevant rules were not pointed out to the Government when information was given to the Assembly questions and the Honble Chief Minister answered the questions as he was then advised. This was mainly due to the fact that the rules governing the promotions and confirmations of clerks in the Ganjam Collectorate were some of the rules of Madras Government prevailing in the ex-Madras area at the time of formation of this Province and the other rules were those prevailing in Orissa. The officers dealing with these cases were either not aware of the exact rules to be applied or were misled by being shown some rule or other whether of Madras or of Orissa in order to suit the particular matter in controversy. When there were persistent representations by the other clerks who were superseded on account of the promotion and confirmation of the petitioner and four others, the matter wag thoroughly examined with reference to the rules actually applicable and the Government came to the conclusion that the promotion and confirmation of the petitioner and four others were made contrary to the rules and in supersession of the claims of many senior clerks eligible to promotion to those posts. 5-19. (After elaborately examining the relevant Government rules, such as Revenue Boards Standing Order No. 140 (2), Madras Ministerial Service Rules, R. 12-A, General Rules of the Madras Service Manual, Vol. III, Rr. 5-19. (After elaborately examining the relevant Government rules, such as Revenue Boards Standing Order No. 140 (2), Madras Ministerial Service Rules, R. 12-A, General Rules of the Madras Service Manual, Vol. III, Rr. 8 and 14 (d)(1), Rules for the Examination in Accounts of Clerks in District and Sub-Divisional Offices to Orissa, R. 14 and correspondence annexed as annexures to the affidavits filed, his Lordship held : (1) that the confirmation and promotion of the petitioner as an upper division clerk were, contrary to the rules and consequently the cancellation thereof was regular; (2) that many senior clerks otherwise qualified were superseded and the petitioner was promoted; (3) that the promotion of the petitioner to an upper division post as he passed the Final Account Test, and thus superseding senior clerks who were eligible under the rules, was irregular, according to R. 14 of the Account Rules; (4) that the Petitioners confirmation as Upper division clerk was irregular as one important rule requiring probationship in the upper division post for two years was a condition precedent for confirmation in the upper division post; and (5) that the confirmation was cancelled as it was contrary to the rules and consequently, the period which the petitioner served before cancellation consequent on an irregular confirmation could not be taken to be a period of probation required under the rules.) 20. It should also be noted that the promotion of the petitioner was in supersession of many senior clerks who, by the time of his promotion were eligible for appointment to upper division and the promotion to upper division posts should be guided by seniority according to rules and the Government cancelled the appointment and confirmation of the petitioner also on the ground that many senior clerks, otherwise qualified who had also put in two years training as Revenue Inspectors, were superseded. The reasons for cancellation were clearly stated in the order of the Revenue Commissioner and the Government; and the Collector was asked to give effect to their orders in accordance with which the Collector cancelled the appointment and confirmation of the petitioner. The petitioner is now serving as an upper division clerk and there are also orders of the Board of Revenue that the petitioner should be fitted in as an upper division clerk and coin-firmed, as soon as vacancy occurs. The petitioner is now serving as an upper division clerk and there are also orders of the Board of Revenue that the petitioner should be fitted in as an upper division clerk and coin-firmed, as soon as vacancy occurs. This being the actual state of facts now existing, we do not think that the petitioner has any grievance. 21. Even if the petitioner has a legitimate grievance. I am of opinion that this Court cannot interfere for the reasons stated in the application under Arts. 226 and 311 of the Constitution. The alleged reduction in the rank is consequent upon an administrative order made after an enquiry into the irregularities of promotions made in the Ganjam Collectorate, and it is purely a departmental proceeding. Article 311 of the Constitution, in my view, cannot be invoked to contend that there was in effect a reduction in rank, and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been served with a notice and an enquiry ought to have been instituted. It may be noted that the action was taken by the Government only on the grounds of irregularities of promotion and not on the ground of punishment that the petitioner was guilty of any Insubordination or misconduct. I think Art. 311 of the Constitution contemplates dismissal or removal, or reduction only as a penal measure taken against the holder of the civil post. Article 311 does not apply to other cases such as the present. 22. The petitioner filed the application in this Court more than two years after the orders of cancellation of his promotion and confirmation were confirmed by the higher authorities. He is clearly guilty of undue delay in coming to this Court and consequently on this ground also he is not entitled to succeed. 23. The petitioner is not, therefore, for the reasons stated above, entitled to invoke the Jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 311 of the Constitution. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed, but under the circumstances of the case without costs. 24. PANIGRAHI, C. J. :- I agree. Petition dismissed