JUDGMENT R.L. Gulati, J. - In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged an order of reversion dated October 30, 1968. 2. The petitioner belongs to the U.P. service of Engineers which he joined as an Assistant Engineer in 1956. With effect from April 1, 1962, he was confirmed in that post. On May 29, 1964, he was posted as an Executive Engineer. Later on by the impugned order, he was reverted to the substantive post of Assistant Engineer. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of reversion upon various grounds. The writ petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court (Hon. Satish Chandra, J.). One of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that he was appointed to the post of Executive Engineer in a substantive vacancy and the order of reversion in law amounted to reduction in rank. The learned Single Judge has found that this allegation of the petitioner is not correct. According to him, the petitioner was holding only an officiating post of Executive Engineer. Likewise, the learned Single Judge has dealt with the other contentions of the petitioner. 4. It was also alleged before the learned Single Judge that the impugned reversion order involved evil consequences to the petitioner and as such it amounted to imposing punishment of reduction in rank in violation of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. V. N. Srivastava, 1969 All L J 1039. That was also a case of an Assistant Engineer who had been reverted to the substantive post of an Assistant Engineer from the post of an officiating Executive Engineer. A Division Bench of this Court held that the reversion of the petitioner in that case visited the petitioner with serious and grave evil consequences in the matter of his future promotion and prospects. A Division Bench of this Court held that the reversion of the petitioner in that case visited the petitioner with serious and grave evil consequences in the matter of his future promotion and prospects. The learned Single Judge has doubted the correctness of that decision and in his order dated August 7, 1969 has referred for the opinion of a Full Bench the following question: "Does the impugned order entail penal consequences so as to amount to reduction in rank?" That is how, this matter has come before us so that if we agree that the case of V. N. Srivastava, 1969 All L J 1039 (Supra) requires reconsideration, the matter may be referred to a Full Bench. 5. We have carefully examined the decision in Y. N. Srivastava's case, 1969 All L J 1039. We find that in that case the U.P. Government had taken the stand that an Assistant Engineer could be appointed as a permanent Executive Engineer only if at the time of selection, he was already working as an officiating Executive Engineer. At the time of hearing, the Chief Standing Counsel made a statement that although there was no rule to that effect, yet according to the practice based upon administrative instructions, no Assistant Engineer could be selected as a permanent Executive Engineer unless he was already acting as an officiating Executive Engineer at the time of selection and that there had been no case in which that procedure had not been followed. It is under these circumstances that the Bench held that the reversion of an officiating Executive Engineer to the post of an Assistant Engineer would entail grave and serious consequences in the matter of his future promotions and prospects because he would lose all chances of promotions so long as he continued to hold the post of Assistant Engineer. 6. In the instant case, however, the position is entirely different. In the supplementary counter affidavit of Sri S. P. Tewari filed on July 10, 1970 it has been stated that in the matter of promotion the rule of "seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit" is being followed and there is no condition that before an Assistant Engineer can be promoted to the post of an Executive Engineer, he must, be holding that post in an officiating capacity. The averment to this effect is contained in cl. The averment to this effect is contained in cl. (d) of paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit which runs as below: "(d) That in accordance with the rules all permanent Assistant engineers, who have completed 7 year's service, are eligible for promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer and are entitled to be considered at the selection and they do not further require them to be officiating as Executive Engineer. In accordance with the practice in the Department throughout permanent Assistant Engineers with 7 year's service to their credit whether or not they are officiating as Executive Engineers are considered for appointment against permanent post of Executive Engineers and the criterion of promotion followed is "seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit." All allegations to the contrary are denied." Moreover at the time of hearing, the Standing Counsel, Sri Ram Manohar Sahai, has made a statement that the petitioner has since been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. This assertion has not been denied by Sri S. C. Khare, who appeared for the petitioner. 7. It is plain, therefore, that the considerations which prevailed with the Bench which decided the case of V. N. Srivastava, 1969 All L J 1039 (supra) do not exist in the instant case, the prospects of future promotion of the petitioner have not in any way been impaired as a result of the reversion and, in fact, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of an Executive Engineer. This being the position the case of V. N. Srivastava, 1969 All L J 1039 (Supra) is clearly distinguishable and need not, in our opinion, be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration. 8. We have also examined the original record of the case to ascertain if the petitioner had been reverted by way of punishment in pursuance of certain complaints against him which were being inquired into. It appears that after the record of the petitioner was examined and the work done by him had been considered, it was found that he was not fit to continue in the post on which he was officiating and was, therefore, reverted. We are unable to hold that the order of reversion involve any stigma upon the petitioner, or that it entailed any penal consequences so as to amount to reduction in rank. 9. We are unable to hold that the order of reversion involve any stigma upon the petitioner, or that it entailed any penal consequences so as to amount to reduction in rank. 9. We accordingly answer the question formulated by the learned Single Judge in the negative. We direct that the papers of this case be sent back to the learned Single Judge for disposal of the case with our opinion on the question as indicated above.