Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This application has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the ordar contained in Annexure 5 of the application, so far as it affects him, may be quashed and the opposite parties directed not to enforce that part of the order against the petitioner. The relevant parts of Annexure 5 run as follows:- -- "Sri J. N. Shaw, HGC/LKR, Scale Rs. 206-280 (As) is appointed to officiate as Chief Coml. Clerk, in Scale Rs. 250-380 (As) and posted as Chief Booking Clerk, Gaya, Viee Sri P. N. Sinha, reverted to his substantive grade Rs. 205-280 (As). His punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year will operate in higher grade." "Sri P. N. Sinha Offg, CBC/GYA, on local arrangement in scale Rs. 250-S80(As) is reverted to his substantive scale Rs. 205-280 (As) and posted as Head Transhipment Clerk, MGS in pay Rs. 280 P. M. vice item 3 above." The reference to "item 2 above" meant that Sri P. N. Sinha was being posted as Head Transhipment Clerk, Moghalsarai in place of Sri B. K. Jha, who was being posted as Chief Transhipment Clerk, Moghalsarai on officiating basis. The petitioners contention is that his reversion to his substantive grade was in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, as he had been promoted as Chief Booking Clerk at Gaya by an order passed on the 6th November, 1967. The order on which reliance has been placed in this context is incorporated in Annexure 1, which runs as follows:- - "Sri P. N. Sinha Shed Clerk (Goods) Gaya in grade Rs. 205-280 (As) pay Rs. 273/-P. M. is temporarily put to officiate in grade 250-380 (As) on pay Rs. 290.00 P. M. m Chief Booking Clerk and posted at Gaya vice vacancy." It is contended, further, that not only the petitioner has been reduced in rank, within the meaning of Article 311 (2), without complying with the provisions of the Constitution Sri Shaw, an officer junior to him has been promoted as the Chief Commercial Clerk, Gaya, so that the petitioners future prospect of promotion has also been affected. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1, denying the allegation that the petitioner of the writ application was reduced in his rank by supersession of his rightful claim to hold the post of the Chief Booking Clerk. It is asserted that the petitioner had merely been holding the post of Chief Booking Clerk temporarily, on a stopgap basis, and that he had no other claim to hold the post by virtue of the order passed la 1967. It is further asserted in the counter-affidavit that, the order incorporated in Annexure 1 itself shows that the petitioner had been temporarily "put to officiate" in a grade 4 carrying a higher scale of pay, only as a matter of local measure, on a clear understanding that the promotion would not confer on the petitioner any claim in future over senior and empanelled men. It is also mentioned in the counter-affidavit, that, Annexure I will itself show that the petitioners, promotion, if any, was a local arrangement and as it might have continued for over three months, the General Managers specific sanction had been obtained, according to the rules. 2. Before I enter into the detailed contentions raised by the learned counsel, it may be stated that admittedly, the petitioner has not yet been empanelled. It has been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ application, that, by an order passed by the Calcutta High Court the result of an examination hold earlier has not yet been published, so that a panel of successful candidates to hold selection grade posts on a permanent basis has not yet been prepared. This matter has also been referred to in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3. 3. For the main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, based on Annexure 1, he has relied upon Annexures 2 and 3, dated the 31st July, 1058 and the 9th July, 1965 respectively. Annexure 2 is a confidential circular from the Director of Establishments, Railway Board to the General Managers, All Indian Railways and C. L. W. and others. The subject was "Reversion from officiating appointment. Circumstances under which it attracts the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution". Annexure 2 is a confidential circular from the Director of Establishments, Railway Board to the General Managers, All Indian Railways and C. L. W. and others. The subject was "Reversion from officiating appointment. Circumstances under which it attracts the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution". Portions of this circular upon which learned counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis read thus:- - "While Article 311 (2) may not be attracted on reversion from an officiating post in certain circumstances as clarified above, administratively, the staff are nonetheless due some protection against such reversion. In this connection, attention is invited to the Boards D. O. letter No. E 55 RG-6-26, dated 21-5-56 in which it was laid down that an officiating Railway servant can be reverted on grounds of unsatisfactory performance and/or unsuitability in the first year of his officiation or if the period is extended by another six months with a warning in the first 18 months, but that thereafter reversion may only be made after observing the disciplinary procedure." "The position, therefore, in that in law, termination of permanent or temporary service brought about by the exercise of a contractual right and termination of the appointment to a permanent or temporary post in Govt. service either on an officiating basis or on probation does not attract Article 311 (2) but in respect of officiating Railway servants who have already officiated for a period of 12 to 18 months, as mentioned in Boards D. O. letter No. E 55 RG 6-26 dated 21-5-56 such reversion cannot administratively be made without the observance of the disciplinary procedure." Annexure 3 is a letter from the Divisional Personnel Officer to all Officers of Dhanbad Division on the subject "D and A. Rules" --Reversion on grounds of general unsuitability of staff officiating in a higher grade for post. This letter had enclosed a copy of a confidential letter D/- 26th June, 1965 from the Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Calcutta and the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following portion of it:- - "It has now been decided by the Railway Board that in future any person who is permitted to officiate beyond .18 months cannot be reverted for unsatisfactory work without following the procedure prescribed in Discipline and Appeal Rules. Therefore, it is now very essential to assess the performance of an officiating employee immediately after a period of six months officiating service and again after 12 months and action taken to revert the employee if at the end of 12 months he is not considered fit. It is now, therefore, necessary that the instructions regarding periodical assessment of the perfor-mance of an officiating employee should be scrupulously carried cut. In this connection attention is invited to this office confidential circular No. AE. 4101 dt. 31-5-60 and D. O. No. E 308/O/Confdl./Vol./II dated L9-5-65. Before I deal with the merit of the above-mentioned contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, reference may be made to An-nexure 4, which the petitioner has himself supplied with the writ application, which is a copy of a confidential letter dated the 4th February, 1966 from the Chief Personnel Officer, Calcutta to the Divisional Superintendent, Dinapur and others concerned. Annexure 4 was in continuation of the confidential letter dated the 26th June, 1965, mentioned above. The subject of Annexure 4 was "Reversion on grounds of general unsuitability of Staff officiating in higher grade or post". This communication may be quoted in full, as Sri P. K. Bose appearing for opposite party no. 1 has relied upon it for meeting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. "In continuation of this office confidential circular of even number, dated 26-6-65 the following copy of Bds confidential letter is forwarded for information and guidance. In this connection, attention is also invited to this office circular Serial No. 4938 and 5443. Copy of Rly. Bds confidential letter no. E (D and A) 65 R. G. 6.24 dated 15-1-66 addressed to GMS. All Indian Railways and others. Sub:- - Reversion on ground of general unsuitability of Staff offg. in a higher grade or post Reference Bds letter of even Number 9-6-1965 wherein it has, inter alia, been stated that in future any person who is permitted to officiate beyond 18 months cannot be reverted for unsatisfactory work without following the procedure prescribed in the Discipline and Appeal Rules. A question has been raised whether this safeguard applies to persons who are officiating on promotion as a stop gap measure and not after empanelment (in. the case of selection post) and after passing the suitability test (in the case of non-selection post). A question has been raised whether this safeguard applies to persons who are officiating on promotion as a stop gap measure and not after empanelment (in. the case of selection post) and after passing the suitability test (in the case of non-selection post). It is clarified that the safeguard applies to only those employees who have acquired a prescriptive right to the officiating post by virtue of their empanelment or having been declared suitable by the competent authorities. It does not apply to those officiating on promotion as a stop-gap measure and also to those cases where an employee duly selected has to be reverted after a lapse of 18 months because of cancellation of selection Board proceedings or due to a change in the panel position consequent to the rectification of mistakes in seniority etc." 4 In my opinion, the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, based on Annexure 1, is not valid. There is no indication in Annexure 1 that the petitioner had been promoted to a higher post even on an officiating basis. The part of Annexure 1, quoted above, makes it clear that the petitioner had been "temporarily put to officiate in grade Rs. 250-380 (As) on pay Rs. 290" per month. Annexure 1 commenced by stating thus:- - "The competent authority has made the following local temporary arrangement partly on stop-gap measure. The staff concerned will have no claim in future over their seniors and also for the grade unless selected by selection board by Hd. Office." The annexure ended by saying that the local officiating arrangement of the post of Chief Booking Clerk, Gaya in grade Rs. 250-380 had the approval of the General Manager, Calcutta. For the concluding part of Annexure 1 Sri P. K. Bose has referred to a circular which reads as follows:- - "Serial No. 6241, Circular No. E. 1023/0 dated the 18th January, 1966. Subject:- - Promotion of Selection and Non-selection posts -- local arrangement. In this office circular Sl. No. 5538, it was inter alia stated that local arrangements in both Selection and Non-selection posts even under compelling circumstances must not be allowed to continue for over three months without the General Managers specific sanction." The fact that the petitioner had really not been promoted to a higher post, even on officiating basis, is clear from the quotations made above from Annexure 5. This had also referred to the arrangement on which the petitioner had been put in a grade carrying a higher scale of pay as a local arrangement. Therefore, when by An-nexure I itself the petitioner had been put to officiate as the Chief Booking Clerk at Gaya as a stop-gap measure, he can hardly contend that by Annexure 5 he has been reduced in rank from a higher post, which he was holding on an officiating basis. Annexure 1 itself stated, as indicated above, that the petitioner could not claim, in future, any right to the higher grade unless he has been selected by the Selection Board. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner based on Annexures 2 and 3 must be negatived by the clarification made in Annexure 4, issued long before the so-called promotion of the petitioner by virtue of Annexure 1. Annexures 2, 3 and 4 are departmental circulars or letters and it is not possible to hold that the petitioner can insist on a right based on Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, merely because he had acted as the Chief Booking Clerk at Gaya for a few days over eighteen months. If the peti-tioner is governed by the instructions con-tained in Annexures 2 and 3, he must also be governed by the clarification made in Annexure 4, unless he can successfully show that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution has been infringed in his case. All these three annexures have been described as confidential instructions and the petitioner is not supposed to have even known all these matters. It is difficult to hold that any legally enforceable right was created in favour of the petitioner by Annexures 2 and 3, apart from the elucidation made in Annexure 4. This conclusion is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Abdulla Rowther V/s. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, AIR 1959 SC 896 . The petitioners case also fails in the light of the observations made by the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Anand Swaroop Bhatnagar V/s. State, AIR 1966 Raj 8 , to which our attention has been drawn by learned Counsel for the petitioner himself. The petitioner of that case had been promoted on an ad hoc basis and thereafter he was said to have been reverted to his substantive post. The petitioner of that case had been promoted on an ad hoc basis and thereafter he was said to have been reverted to his substantive post. The learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court stated in their judgment, that, reversion of an officiating appointee to his substantive post can be violative of Article 311 of the Constitution if the reversion was intended to be by way of punishment. In the instant case, the facts do not prove that the order complained against was intended to be a punishment. As a matter of fact, when the order incorporated in Annexure 1 had been passed in favour of the petitioner in 1967, he was drawing a pay of Rs. 272 per month in the grade Rs. 205-280, and by the impugned order, passed in 1969, the petitioner was reverted to his substantive scale, on a pay of Rs. 280 per month. No stigma was attached by this order of reversion, and on the contrary, the order indicated that the petitioner was in the scale of Rs. 250-380 per month on local arrangement only. Even if it be held that the order passed in 1969 had amounted to a reduction in rank, it was not by way of punishment and it may be called, in the language of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the case of Purshotam Lal Dhingra V/s. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 at page 49, "an innocuous thing". 5 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the promotion of an officer junior to him, as has been made by Annex-ure 5, to the post of Chief Commercial Clerk and posting him as the Chief Booking Clerk at Gaya in place of the petitioner should be quashed. But, this arrangement was also described in Annex, 5 as a stop-gap measure for administrative interest, without conferring on the staff any claim for promotion and seniority in the higher scale of pay. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner was in any way prejudiced by this part of the order complained of. But, this arrangement was also described in Annex, 5 as a stop-gap measure for administrative interest, without conferring on the staff any claim for promotion and seniority in the higher scale of pay. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner was in any way prejudiced by this part of the order complained of. Moreover, Sri P. K. Bose appearing for respondent-opposite party No. 1 has referred to Annexure A attached to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of this respondent-opposite party, showing that another officer named Sri Dayashankar Singh has been ordered to take over charge at Gaya as Chief Booking Clerk, by a subsequent order passed by the authority. I am referring to Annexure A merely as a statement of fact, not that it would have made any difference to the petitioners case, if he had been able to substantiate his contention that his so-called reversion was unconstitutional. 6. There is another serious lacuna in this writ application, namely, that the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent, who is said to have passed the impugned order incorporated in Annexure 5, has not been impleaded in this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was enough to implead respondent opposite party No. 1, Union of India as owner of the Eastern Railway through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta, for the purpose of quashing an order passed by the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent against this petitioner. It is difficult to uphold this contention and even if the other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were of force, this writ application would have suffered from a serious defect. However, as I have held above, there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner for quashing of the order contained in Annexure 5, said to be adverse to the petitioner. 7. In the result, this writ application fails and it is dismissed with costs payable to respondent-opposite party No. 1. The cost is assessed at a consolidated amount of Rs. 150.00. Kanhaiyaji, J. 8 I agree.