JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - Owing to the abolition of certain temporary divisions in the Public Works Department some officiating Executive Engineers had to be reverted. On 28th October, 1967, the Government passed orders reverting about eleven such officers to their substantive post of Assistant Engineers. Four of them, namely V. K. Srivastava, H. S. Kalsi, J. P. Goel and M. N. K. Pande have filed these four writ petitions to impugn the validity of the order of their reversion. Common contention in all these cases is that the State Government has acted arbitrarily in reverting Executive Engineers and has passed orders in disregard of the relevant rules. 2. The U. P. Service of Engineers originally had two classes, namely class I and class II. In 1948 these classes were abolished and a single U. P. Service of Engineers with a junior and a senior scale established. It was provided that there would be no direct recruitment to the posts in the senior scale. They would all be filled by promotion from the junior scale. Recruitment is made to the junior scale alone according to the rules regulating the appointment to, and the conditions of service of the Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II. Those very rules apply to other branches as well. Recruitment to the junior scale is made by promotion from subordinate services as well as by direct recruitment. The seniority in the junior scale is governed by rule 23 according to which it is to be determined according to the date of the order of appointment to the service. The junior scale officers are called the Assistant Engineers. On promotion to the senior scale they are designated as Executive Engineers. The promotion to the senior scale of Executive Engineers is governed by the rules known as the Rules for selection of Assistant Engineers for promotion to the grade of Executive Engineers. Under it a departmental Selection Committee is to consider the cases of all Assistant Engineers eligible (that is to say who have completed seven years service and are less than fifty years of age) and examine their annual confidential reports and personal files and interview them if necessary. The number of candidates recommended shall be equal to the number of vacancies. The number of candidates recommended shall be equal to the number of vacancies. The Committee is to prepare a second list called the supplementary list also containing, in order of merit, the names of other candidates whom they consider fit for promotion. Both these lists are to be forwarded to the Government. The Governor is to make the final selection. The names of candidates finally selected shall be arranged in the order of their respective seniority in the Assistant Engineers grade. This selection is based upon merit, but the selected candidates are to be promoted in the order of their seniority in the scale of Assistant Engineers. On promotion they carry their seniority. 3. On 27th December, 1956, the State Government passed an order directing that the system of promotion from one lower grade or post to a higher grade or post within the same service shall be governed by the system of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. But this order was modified on 4th August, 1959, in relation to selection to the posts of Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department for which the selection was to be made on the basis of merit from the entire field of eligibility vide Government Order No. 2739-EBR/XXIII-PWB-81-EBR/1949, dated Lucknow 4-8-1959. 4. The rules for promotion to the posts of the Executive Engineers contemplated regular appointments, that is to say in substantive capacities. There are no specific rules governing promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in an officiating or temporary capacity. On 4th August, 1949, the Government passed another order No. 2899-EBR/XXIII-PWB-81-EBR/49 in which it was stated that after a careful consideration of the matter of seniority of temporary and officiating Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers the Government have decided that in the civil list or the gradation list of the Public Works Department the names of temporary/officiating Superintending and Executive Engineers are to be arranged in the order of their seniority as permanent Assistant Engineers and permanent Executive Engineers respectively. In the remarks column however the date from which the officer has been continuously working as a temporary/officiating Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer may be shown. Thus the Government intended that while officiating as Executive Engineers, the permanent Assistant Engineers would carry their seniority. Their place in the gradation list would be according to their seniority as permanent Assistant Engineers. In the remarks column however the date from which the officer has been continuously working as a temporary/officiating Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer may be shown. Thus the Government intended that while officiating as Executive Engineers, the permanent Assistant Engineers would carry their seniority. Their place in the gradation list would be according to their seniority as permanent Assistant Engineers. This goes to indicate that seniority was a determining consideration in the matter of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in temporary or officiating capacity also. 5. It appears that at first in the month of September, 1967 the Government as a result of abolition of certain temporary division reverted the following eight officiating Executive Engineers : 1. Shri Jyoti Prakash 2. Shri Shanti Swaroop 3. Shri Vishnu Chand Goel 4. Shri Naresh Chandra Garg 5. Shri Jagdish Prasad Maheshwary 6. Shri Khyal Singh Choudhry 7. Shri Ram Prakash 8. Shri Dalpat Tulsi Das Thakur. (Vide paragraph 13 of Writ Petition No. 4304 of 1967, Jai Prakash Goel v. State of U.P. and others). This assertion in paragraph 13 has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the Government in that case. In paragraph 14 of that petition it has been stated that some of the above mentioned officers made approaches to the Higher authorities of the Government as a result of which the reversion orders in respect of officers at serial Nos. 1 to 5 were cancelled for reasons best known to the Government and simultaneously the reversion orders of the following Executive Engineers including the petitioner were issued on the basis of 'last come first go' : 1. Shri Lalji Singh 2. Shri Vijendra Kumar Srivastava 3. Shri Surya Kumar Gupta 4. Shri Deo Prakash Vats 5. Shri Harpal. Singh Kalsi 6. Shri Jai Prakash Goyal 7. Shri Manmohan Krishna Pandey 8. Shri Krishna Chandra Pant. 6. Of these eight officers four, namely those mentioned at serial Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7 have filed the present writ petitions. 7. The principal submission made on behalf of the petitioners was that under the rules the Assistant Engineers carry their seniority on being appointed to the posts of Executive Engineers. When owing to the exigencies of the service an occasion arose to revert some officiating Executive Engineers the principle upon which the promotions are to be made ought to have been kept in mind and followed. When owing to the exigencies of the service an occasion arose to revert some officiating Executive Engineers the principle upon which the promotions are to be made ought to have been kept in mind and followed. The general rule that the junior-most should be reverted first was to be complied with. There were no exceptional circumstances in this case to merit a departure from that guiding principle. The Government did at first pass the orders of reversion in accordance with that rule or on the basis of unsatisfactory performance of some of the officers, but subsequently the Government changed its orders and arbitrarily applied the principle of last come first go in making the reversions of Executive Engineers. 8. In the case of Shri V. K. Srivastava (Writ Petition No. 3808 of 1967) Shri S. C. Khare made an additional submission that even if it be accepted that the Government was justified in applying the principle of last come first go in the matter of making reversions, the reversion of Shri V. K. Srivastava was not justifiable under that principle because respondents Nos. 13 to 17 in that petition were promoted to the posts of Executive Engineers temporarily later than the petitioner, namely Shri V. K. Srivastava. The petitioner had held the post longer than those officers. He was not liable to be reverted while respondents Nos. 13 to 17 were kept on. 9. Sri V. K. Srivastava was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer on 23rd July, 1958. By an order dated 1st January, 1965, he was confirmed on the post of Assistant Engineer. The order of confirmation stated that the inter se seniority of the petitioner with other Assistant Engineers will be determined later on. He was then promoted to the post of Executive Engineer by an order dated 19th February, 1965. He has been reverted to his substantive post of Assistant Engineer by the impugned order passed on 18th October, 1967. 10. Shri H. S. Kalsi, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3750 of 1967, appears to have been confirmed as Assistant Engineer on 1st August, 1960. Shri J. P. Goel, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4304 of 1967, asserts that he was confirmed as an Assistant Engineer on 1st October, 1963. 10. Shri H. S. Kalsi, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3750 of 1967, appears to have been confirmed as Assistant Engineer on 1st August, 1960. Shri J. P. Goel, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4304 of 1967, asserts that he was confirmed as an Assistant Engineer on 1st October, 1963. In the case of Shri M. K. Pandey, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4065 of 1967, the Government appears to have passed an order of confirmation on 23rd June, 1966. The order state; that the date with effect from which Shri Pandey will be deemed to be confirmed will be notified later. The orders of confirmation specifically state that the confirmations are made subject to inter se seniority of the various officers being determined later on. The seniority list of Assistant Engineers grade corrected upto 31st March, 1967, also shows that the seniority of the Assistant Engineers permanent mentioned at serial No. 4 and onwards has not been fixed. Similarly the inter se seniority of Executive Engineers temporary was also not determined. 11. Shri V. K. Srivastava, as mentioned above, was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer by an order passed on 19th February, 1965. The other three petitioners, namely H. S. Kalsi, J. P. Goel and M. K. Pandey were promoted to the posts of Executive Engineers by the same order passed on 19th February, 1967. The order which is Annexure G to Writ Petition No. 4304 of 1967, J. P. Goel v. State of U.P., shows another curious feature. It promotes Shri H. S. Kalsi and Shri J. P. Goel and directs that they be posted as Executive Engineers but in relation to Shri M. K. Pandey it specifically says that he is being promoted as officiating Executive Engineer. All these three officers have also been reverted by an order passed on 28th October, 1967. 12. The position is that the Government has not yet determined the inter se seniority of the various Assistant Engineers. It has been making promotions of Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineers in officiating capacities without determining their seniority. All these three officers have also been reverted by an order passed on 28th October, 1967. 12. The position is that the Government has not yet determined the inter se seniority of the various Assistant Engineers. It has been making promotions of Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineers in officiating capacities without determining their seniority. The case of the Government is this since there are no statutory rules governing the matter of reversion and since the inter se seniority of the various officiating Executive Engineers has not yet been determined, the Government applied the well-known principle of last come first go in making the reversions caused by administrative exigencies of the service. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Government further stressed that the Government having acted upon a well-known principle, the impugned orders of reversion could not be held arbitrary or discriminatory in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. 13. In Rantaswanzy v. Inspector General of Police, A.I.R. 1966 SC 175 the Supreme Court ruled (paragraph 12) :- "When reversion take place on account of exigencies of public service, the usual principle is that the junior-most persons among those officiating in clear or long term vacancies are generally reverted to make room for the senior officers coming back from deputation or from leave, etc. Further ordinarily as promotion on officiating basis is generally according to seniority, subject to fitness for promotion, junior-most person reversion reverted is usually the person promoted last. This state of affairs prevails ordinarily unless there are extraordinary circumstances ...... " 14. So the general and the reasonable principle is that if you promote persons in accordance/ with their seniority you have to keep that principle in mind when reversing the process and reverting the officers owing to the administrative exigencies of the service. The occasion for making reversions may arise because an officer comes back from deputation or because a post is being abolished. In either case the principle upon which the reversion is to take place is the same. The principles which guide promotion in a particular case are relevant in guiding the authorities when it comes to making reversions. When the promotion is to be made in accordance with seniority the rule that reversions may be made on the principle of last come first go would not normally be appropriate. The principles which guide promotion in a particular case are relevant in guiding the authorities when it comes to making reversions. When the promotion is to be made in accordance with seniority the rule that reversions may be made on the principle of last come first go would not normally be appropriate. In the present case the rules regulating the promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers specify that the appointment on promotion shall be made in August, 1959 shows that officers holding the posts of Executive Engineers in an officiating or temporary capacity will also be shown in the gradation list in order of their seniority as permanent Assistant Engineers. The Government clearly contemplated the relevance and importance of seniority as Assistant Engineer even while the officer was officiating in the higher post of Executive Engineer. In such a situation the reasonable rule normally governing reversions would be reversion of the junior-most. The principle of last come first go may be applied without violating the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances over which the authorities have had really no control. 15. For the Respondents it was stressed that present case presented an extraordinary situation because the inter se seniority of the various Assistant Engineers had not been determined. But that could not be said to be a circumstance with which the Government was faced for reasons beyond its control. The confirmations of the four petitioners as Assistant Engineers were made in 1960, 1963, 1965 and 1966. The Government has had ample time to determine their inter se seniority at least with the other who had also been promoted. That was not a task so difficult that it could not be completed even in the course of years. The mere in action of the Government in doing its duty and determining the inter se seniority of the various Assistant Engineers could not, in my opinion, be pressed in service to constitute an extraordinary situation. Article 335 of the Constitution signifies that in making appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State the maintenance of efficiency of administration is to be taken into consideration. Article 335 of the Constitution signifies that in making appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State the maintenance of efficiency of administration is to be taken into consideration. Making appointments to the posts of Executive Engineers which are generally to he in order of seniority without determining the inter se seniority of the officers in the field of eligibility is not in consonance with that constitutional mandate. Leaving the various officers of the service in an uncertain state of mind as to their inter se seniority for years together is situation full of possibilities of heart-burning, lack of stability and possibility of unfair dealings in matter of promotion reversion etc.; these factors are bound to affect the maintenance of efficiency in a public service. The Government cannot, in my opinion, rely upon its own in actions to create a situation wherein the normal rule generally applicable in the matter of reversions may be given a go bye and a principle which is familiar only in industrial law and not in public services may be used. I am not satisfied that the respondents have established that the present was an extraordinary case in which the rule of last come first go may be applied reasonably. 16. Further, the application of the rule of last come first go does not appear to be a well settled policy in the Public Works Department of this State. The order dated 16th February, 1967, promoting three of the petitioners, namely H. S. Kalsi, J. P. God and M. K. Pandey to the post of Executive Engineer at the end states :- "Sri Jagannath Prasad Gupta and Shri R. K. Sharma had been promoted as Executive Engineers on the basis of an ad hoc select list of promoted officers prepared in 1965. Since these officers are junior in the seniority list. They may please be reverted as Assistant Engineer to make room for their seniors who find place in the "Select List" which had been prepared in 1966". 17. This would suggest that in making reversions the Government was applying the principle of juniority. While passing the present orders of reversion the Government at first in September, 1967 passed orders reverting eight officiating Executive Engineers. 17. This would suggest that in making reversions the Government was applying the principle of juniority. While passing the present orders of reversion the Government at first in September, 1967 passed orders reverting eight officiating Executive Engineers. Then it suddenly changed its mind and employed the principle of last come first go and on that basis passed fresh orders reverting the petitioners. It does not appear that the principle of last come first go is the settled principle or policy employed by the Government in the Public Works Department. So, there was neither any extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the Government nor was there any settled policy in the Public Works Department on the basis of which the present orders of reversion could be justified on the principle of last come first go. 18. The petitioners in all the four cases claim that they are senior to many other Assistant Engineers who are still officiating as Executive Engineers. The Government's reply was that they cannot claim to be so because their seniority inter se has not yet been determined. Under the circumstances of these cases the Government could not be held to have acted reasonably in passing the orders of reversion without determining the seniority of the various officers. The action of the Government in reverting the petitioners was arbitrary and as such discriminatory in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. 19. For the respondents it was urged that the officiating Executive Engineers who have been retained and not reverted may have been technically junior as Assistant Engineers to those who have been reverted, but since they entered the field of eligibility earlier by being promoted earlier they constitute a separate class. The field of eligibility for the posts of Executive Engineers is under the rules determined by the order of seniority. There is no separate rule for officiating appointments to the post of Executive Engineer. The rule for regular appointments reasonably ought to have been kept in mind. Further, on confirmation as Executive Engineers the officers gain or are relegated to their respective seniority as Assistant Engineers. Thus, the field of eligibility in the post of Executive Engineer in matters of promotion being seniority, the normal rule as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ramaswamy's case, cited above, is the same, namely the junior-most ought to be reverted first. Thus, the field of eligibility in the post of Executive Engineer in matters of promotion being seniority, the normal rule as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ramaswamy's case, cited above, is the same, namely the junior-most ought to be reverted first. Thus, it cannot be said that the field of eligibility when it comes to make a reversion is anything different than the field of eligibility in matters of promotion. Therefore, in the absence of any extraordinary circumstances or situation the fact that a particular officer has been officiating for a longer period would not make him a separate class. 20. In Writ Petition No. 3808 of 1967, V. K. Srivastava v. State of U.P., Mr. Khare urged an additional point that the petitioner was appointed as Executive Engineer on 15th April, 1965, the day on which he took charge. According to the gradation list published by the Government Shri Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, respondent No. 13, was appointed as Executive Engineer on 17th April, 1965, Shri Dinesh Chandra Nautiyal, respondent No. 14, on 18th April, 1965, Shri Vishnu Chand Goel respondent No. 15 on 10th May, 1965, Shri Vijai Pal Singh Sharma, respondent No. 16, on 7th October, 1965, and Shri Dev Raj Agarwal, respondent No. 17, on 12th October, 1966. Thus, respondents Nos. 13 to 17 came to occupy the posts of Executive Engineers from a date after the date of the petitioner's appointment to it. They could not be held to have been officiating continuously as Executive Engineers for a period longer than the petitioner. The petitioner's reversion without reverting respondents Nos. 13 to 17 was not even in conformity with the principle of last come first go applied by the respondents. There is merit in this submission, but I need not express concluded an opinion on it as the petition is liable to succeed on the first point. 21. In the result all these four writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders of reversion are set aside. The petitioners will be entitled to their costs from respondent No. 1.