NAYUDD C. J.:~- The simple point that falls to be considered in this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution is whether the notice dated 6-5 1905 Annexure 'C' to the petition issued by the District and Sessions Judge Cachar Silchar to the petitioner Sri Rent Madhah Pal Chaudhuri to show cause why the order- of the petitioner's confirmation as Sheristadai Office of the Munsiff No 1 Silchar should not be cancelled, is valid or not (2) The petitioner was selected and appointed as an Upper Division Assistant in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge Cachar Silchar and later confirmed by the order of the District and Session Judge who is the competent authority to confirm him in the chain of the vacancy caused by the retirement of Shri Jogesh Chandra Roy with effect horn 2-1-1962, vide Annexure 'G' to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner. The petitioner having thus been confirmed, our attention has not been drawn to any provision of law, which entitles the Government to set aside that confirmation. It may be mentioned that the post of the Sheristadar is only an Upper Division post with a spe­cial pay, in which the petitioner was confirmed by Annexure 'G' referred to above, which is dated 21st July, 1964. (3) Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Junior Govt. Advocate, placed reliance on F.R. 31-A of the Fundamental Rules, which runs as follows: "F.R. 31-A.-Notwithstanding the provisions contained in these rules, the pay of Gov­ernment servant, whose promotion or appoint­ment to a post is found to be or to have been erroneous, shall be regulated in accordance with any general or special orders issued by the Governor in this behalf." It is clear from the above rule that it makes no reference to an order of erroneous confirmation or the cancellation of such confirmation. The making of an appointment and the making of an order of promotion are matters within the juris­diction of the appointing authority and the authority vested with the duty of making a pro­motion, and since no permanent rights are ac­quired by mere promotion or appointment, any erroneous order passed in regard to these mat­ters might justify interference under the office memorandum dated 16th June 1964 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, Shillong, which is Annexure V to the affidavit-in -opposition filed on be­half of the Government. (4) It is common knowledge that confirmation gives certain rights to the Government, who Is confirmed, the rights being that he cannot be removed from service except on disciplinary grounds or on medical unfitness. Here there is an question of any disciplinary grounds, nor any question of medical unfitness. Such being the case and there being no power under the rules to set aside the confirmation of a Government servant, we must hold that the Government has no such power. It would be most dangerous to assume that such a power exists in the Govern­ment; for, then there will be absolutely no certainty to the service of a Government servant. Any such stand on behalf of the Government will certainly be contrary to all recognised principles of Government employment. It is because confirmation gives a permanent footing in the service that employees are anxious to get themselves confirmed and in the Central Government service there is the system of quasi permanency in regard to the officers and employees, who have done three years of continuous service. (5) Mr Mazumdar contended that Annexure V, referred to above, gives power to the State Government to interfere with the confirmation orders made already. We have been taken through Annexure V and we find nothing in it to Justify any such conclusion. On the other hand, it is in pursuance of F. R. 81-A that Annexure V has been issued and the heading of Annexure V says-"Regulation of pay and increments of a Government servant whose promotion/appoint­ment to a post is decided to be erroneous We' must make it quite clear that under F R. 31 A or Annexure V dated 16-6-64, referred to above any error or mistake in the appointment or pro­motion could only be corrected before the authority decides to confirm the incumbent in the particular post in question Once a confirmation order is made, we have no doubt whatsoever that that confirmation could only be interfered with by applying the procedure indicated in Article 311 of the Constitution. (6) In the result, therefore, we are clearly of opinion that the Government have no power !o interfere with a confirmation order already made. This is not a case of an order made by the Gov­ernment being ab initio void and completely devoid of jurisdiction, in which case different con­siderations might have arisen. (6) In the result, therefore, we are clearly of opinion that the Government have no power !o interfere with a confirmation order already made. This is not a case of an order made by the Gov­ernment being ab initio void and completely devoid of jurisdiction, in which case different con­siderations might have arisen. As we have held on the facts and circumstances of the case that the Government have no power to interfere with the confirmation of the petitioner, the notice issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar under Annexure 'C' dated 6-5-65, refer­red to above calling upon the petition to show cause why his confirmation as Sheristadar, office of the Munsiff No I, Silchar, should not be can­celled is obviously without jurisdiction and calls for our interference in exercise of our power under Article 226 of the Constitution We ac­cordingly quash the notice, make the nil absolute and allow the petition, but there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.