JUDGMENT B.N. Lokur, J. - Writ Petition No. 1857 of 1969 filed by Jagdish Narain Kashyap and Writ Petition No. 1981 of 1969 filed by Om Prakash Misra were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment as the two petitions raise common questions of law. 2. Both Kashyap and Misra were Skilled Fitters in the Northern Railway and were in due course selected for the posts of Train Examiners (referred to the records of the cases as TXR). 3. The posts of Train Examiners are in four grades : grade A, grade B, grade C and grade D. We are concerned in these petitions with grade C, carrying a pay scale of Rs. 205-280, and grade D on a pay scale of Rs. 180-240. Originally, recruitment to grade D Train Examiners was made by promotion of skilled artisans (which expression included Skilled Fitters as well as Khalasis) and by direct recruitment. The direct recruits were to serve an apprenticeship for four years before becoming eligible for appointment as grade D Train Examiners; during the period of apprenticeship they were designated as apprentice Train Examiners fifty per cent of grade D Train Examiners were open for promotion while the remaining fifty per cent of these posts were filled by apprentice Train Examiners. The skilled artisans selected for promotion as grade D Train Examiners had to undergo one year's Special Intensive Training Course before appointment as Train Examiners but the practice appears to have been to appoint the Train Examiners in local arrangements even before they were sent for the Special Intensive Training Course. 4. Both Kashyap and Misra were promoted as Train Examiners in local arrangements in 1963 and in 1964 respectively. They were sent for the Special Intensive Training Course in April, 1965, and after successful completion of the course, their posting orders were issued by the General Manager, Northern Railway, on the 20th April, 1966, along with those of several other trainees. The order read as follows :- "The following artisan staff after successful completion of their one year's Intensive Training Course in the duties of Train Examiners, grade Rs. 180-240 (AS) are posted to the Divisions noted against them against the existing vacancies." Then follows a list of 67 successful trainees, Kashyap being at serial No. 8 and Misra at serial No. 49. A list of eleven unsuccessful trainees also "finds place in these orders. 180-240 (AS) are posted to the Divisions noted against them against the existing vacancies." Then follows a list of 67 successful trainees, Kashyap being at serial No. 8 and Misra at serial No. 49. A list of eleven unsuccessful trainees also "finds place in these orders. Kashyap was allotted to Lucknow Division while Misra was allotted to Moradabad Division. In implementation of the orders of the General Manager, the Principal of Northern Railway System Technical School, where the training was held, passed further orders on 25th April, 1966, in the following words : "The following artisan staff, having been declared successful on completion of one year's Special Intensive Course in the duties of Train Examiners grade Rs. 180-240 (AS) are posted to the Divisions noted against them against the existing vacancies. These orders are issued in terms of G. H. (P) letter No. 753-M/2-X (Eii C) dated 20-4-1966." The two lists prepared under the General-Manager's orders have then been reproduced. 5. On the 4th June, 1966, the Divisional Personnel Officer of the Northern Railway transferred Misra to Lucknow Division and thus both Misra and Kashyap came to be attached to the Lucknow Division. Misra was stationed as Sultanpur, while Kashyap who was stationed at Pilibhit was transferred to Lucknow at his own request on the 7th May, 1966. Later, both Kashyap and Misra were reverted as fitters on 4th June, 1969 and 30th June, 1969, respectively. These orders of reversion are impugned in these petitions. It may be mentioned that the orders of reversion were stayed by this Court pending disposal of these petitions and Kashyap and Misra have been working as grade D Train Examiners even now. 6. The circumstances leading to the reversion of the two petitioners may now be set out. By a letter dated 27th October, 1965, the Railway Board amended the procedure for filling the posts of Train Examiners. It is necessary to reproduce the letter in extenso. The letter read : "The Board have had under consideration the question of increasing the number of technically trained staff in the Train Examiners Cadre keeping in view the day to day increase in the work of carriage and wagon examination and the more complicated types of rolling stock in use. It is necessary to reproduce the letter in extenso. The letter read : "The Board have had under consideration the question of increasing the number of technically trained staff in the Train Examiners Cadre keeping in view the day to day increase in the work of carriage and wagon examination and the more complicated types of rolling stock in use. They have decided that the undermentioned procedure should be followed : RECRUITMENT (1) Vacancies in the entry grade of Train Examiners in the authorised scale of Rs. 180-240 should not be filled from apprentice TXR upto 50% as hitherto, but should exclusively be filled by promotion from amongst artisan staff. (a) Vacancies in the next higher grade Rs. 205-280/AS should be filled from amongst the TXRs. in Cr. Rs. 180-240 AS to the extent of 20%. (b) The remaining 60% vacancies should be filled by Apprentice TXRs who have successfully completed a prescribed apprenticeship mentioned in para 2 below. (c) 25% of the annual requirements of apprentice TXRs should be drawn from skilled artisans who are not more than 35 gears old on 1st July of the year in which apprenticeship is likely to commence. The instructions contained in Board's letter No. E (BC) 61/PMI/101, dated 6-6-1962 should be kept in view. TRAINING 2. The apprentice TXRs. recruited on and from 1-4-1966 shall be given a training for a period of five years (three years in the case of diploma-holders) . From the same date artisans in lower grades (recruited as apprentice TXRs.) shall be given in service training for a period of three years. Instructions regarding a revised syllabus for the training of the Apprentice TXRs. will follow. Distribution of posts in different grades. Fifty per cent of existing posts of TXRs. in grade Rs. 180-240 which were required to be earmarked for Apprentice TXRs. in terms of Board's letter No. PC 60/PS-5 TP/6 dated 18-2-1961 should be upgraded to scale Rs. 205-280/As. Revised Designation and Classification of posts of TXRs Designation Scale of pay Classification. TXRs. Cr. D Rs. 120-240 Non-selection. TXRs. Cr. C Rs. 205-280 Selection for promotion from Cr. D. TXRs. Cr. B Rs. 250-380 Selection. TXRs. Cr. A Rs. 335-425 Non-selection. Hd. TXRs. Rs. 370-475 Selection. Chief TXRs. Carriage Foreman Rs. 450-575 Selection. Promotion to the existing Apprentice TXRs. and procedure to fill up graded vacancies. TXRs. Cr. D Rs. 120-240 Non-selection. TXRs. Cr. C Rs. 205-280 Selection for promotion from Cr. D. TXRs. Cr. B Rs. 250-380 Selection. TXRs. Cr. A Rs. 335-425 Non-selection. Hd. TXRs. Rs. 370-475 Selection. Chief TXRs. Carriage Foreman Rs. 450-575 Selection. Promotion to the existing Apprentice TXRs. and procedure to fill up graded vacancies. It has also been decided that with effect from 1-4-1966 all the Apprentice TXRs. (Diploma holders as well as others) on successful completion of their training should be straightway brought on to the scale of Rs. 205-280/AS instead of being first absorbed in scale of Rs. 180-6-240 as present. Consequently they should be allowed stipend in scale Rs. 180-6-210 during the period of their training. As regards the apprentice TXRs. who are undergoing training at present, and will not be brought on to the working posts before 1-4-1966, it has been decided that from the date of effect of this letter, they should be allowed stipend in scale Rs. 180-6-210 during the remaining period of their training, their period of training also should be increased to 5 years, on completion of which they should be put on to the working posts in scale Rs. 205-280/As. The apprentice TXRs. who have already been or will be absorbed in scale of Rs. 180-240 upto 31-3-1966 should first be accommodated in scale of Rs. 205-280 against the quota of 80% vacancies reserved for them, such staff should not be required to undergo a selection before being absorbed in that grade. The upgraded vacancies in scale Rs. 205-280 left over after earmarking those for the apprentice under training on 1-4-1966 should be filled by promotion of TXR in scale Rs. 180-240 on a selection basis. While computing the number of posts available for promotion of TXRs. in scale of Rs. 180-240 the vacancies likely to occur during the period of apprenticeship of the apprentices under training as on 1-4-1966 should also be taken into account. In other words it would be necessary to keep in reserve only the number of posts equal to the number of apprentices under training as on 1-4-1966, who cannot be absorbed in the anticipated vacancies which will arise by the time they qualify. Seniority. Seniority of the staff will be fixed under the normal principles in accordance with the extent instructions on the subject. Seniority. Seniority of the staff will be fixed under the normal principles in accordance with the extent instructions on the subject. The grant of the revised rates of stipend has the sanction of the President." This letter revised the scheme of recruitment to grade C and grade D Train Examiners and the salient features of the revised scheme are : (1) Fifty per cent of the posts of grade D Train Examiners were upgraded to grade C and the strength of grade C Train Examiners was correspondingly increased. (2) Appointments to the posts of grade C Train Examiners were to be made exclusively by promotion of artisan staff. (3) Eighty per cent of the vacancies in the posts of grade C Train Examiners were to be filled by apprentice Train Examiners recruited on and from 1st April, 1966; the remaining 20 per cent of the vacancies in the posts of grade C Train Examiners were to be filled by promotion of grade D Train Examiners. (4) The period of apprenticeship of those apprentice Train Examiners who were recruited on and from 1st April, 1966 as well as of those who were undergoing training at the time of the issue of the letter was increased from 4 years to 5 years; the period prescribed was three years only in the case of diploma-holders recruited as apprentices on and from 1st April, 1966. The period of apprenticeship of artisan staff was also increased from one year to three years. (5) The apprentice Train Examiners who were already undergoing training were also to be absorbed directly in grade C after completion of the increased period of training of five years. (6) The apprentice Train Examiners who had already been absorbed or who were to be absorbed by the 31st March, 1966 in grade D would be accommodated in grade C against the quota of 80 per cent vacancies in grade C. (7) The necessary number of posts in grade C to provide for the appointment of apprentice Train Examiners under training on the 1st April, 1966, should be kept vacant for their absorption in those posts on completion of their apprenticeship. 7. 7. K. B. Awasthi and five others, who were recruited as apprentice Train Examiners in 1963, completed their apprenticeship in December, 1968, and were in the light of the above scheme directly appointed as grade C Train Examiners and allotted to Allahabad Division. It is alleged that an equal number of D grade posts were upgraded to grade C to provide for those apprentice Train Examiners with the result that the artisan staff officiating in those D grade posts had to be reverted as fitters, two of those thus reverted being Reoti Prasad and Muneshwar Singh. These two Officers challenged their reversion in courts of law and obtained stay orders, whereupon the six apprentice Train Examiners were transferred in batches to Lucknow for absorption. In Lucknow Division also there were no sufficient number of vacancies in grade C, and grade D posts had to be upgraded to provide for them in terms of the orders of 27th October, 1965, as and when the transfers of the six apprentice Train Examiners took effect. Kashyap was revered on his post being upgraded to provide for T. R. Mauriya, while Misra was reverted on the upgrading of his post for K.B. Awasthi. 8. The first contention of the two petitioners is that their appointment as grade D Train Examiners was in a substantive capacity and hence they could not be reverted. It is undeniable that their appointments as Train Examiners prior to the Intensive Training Course was in an officiating capacity but the case of the petitioners is that on their appointment after completion of the course it was of a substantive nature. The averment of Misra is that he became permanent with effect from 21st June, 1966, while that of Kashyap is that he became permanent on his appointment after the completion of the Training Course. 9. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the statement in the orders of he Principal of the Northern Railway System Technical School that the various trainees were posted to the specified divisions "against the existing vacancies". A similar phraseology is used in the General Manager's order which formed the basis of the Principal's orders. It is contended that since the petitioners were posted against clear vacancies their appointments ought to be regarded as substantive. A similar phraseology is used in the General Manager's order which formed the basis of the Principal's orders. It is contended that since the petitioners were posted against clear vacancies their appointments ought to be regarded as substantive. Reference was also made to the orders of transfer of the two petitioners from the Divisions to which had originally been allotted to Lucknow Division and to their posting at the stations in Lucknow Division, in which they are not described as officiating. I am unable to draw an inference from these orders that, on completion of their training, the petitioners were appointed as Train Examiners on a permanent basis. Appointment of an officer against a clear existing vacancy by itself does not indicate that the appointment is in a substantive capacity; the absence of a reference to officiating status in transfer orders or orders of posting at particular stations does not also necessarily imply that the two officers were appointed substantively. On the other hand, the orders of reversion show that the petitioners were treated as officiating Train Examiners. 10. It is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioners as Train Examiners prior to their joining the Intensive Training Course was officiating; it is also not disputed that even while they were undergoing the training course they had the status of officiating Train Examiners. In this connection it is necessary to point out that both of them have averred in their petition that they were working as Train Examiners continuously for five years, first as officiating hand and thereafter, on passing the Intensive Training, as permanent hands. If the initial appointment was officiating, the petitioners cannot claim permanency of appointment without subsequent appropriate orders. Mere successful completion of the Training Course and posting against existing vacancies would not by themselves convert the officiating status into substantive status. 11. Reliance was next placed on Rule 104 in sub-sec. I of Section B of Chapter I of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Second Edition, 1968) which reads: "104. Period of Probation - All the appointments will be made on probation for one year. 11. Reliance was next placed on Rule 104 in sub-sec. I of Section B of Chapter I of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Second Edition, 1968) which reads: "104. Period of Probation - All the appointments will be made on probation for one year. For trainees or apprentices appointed to a working post after the conclusion of their training the probationary period commences on the date of such appointment." It is urged that there is no provision for extending the period of probation and on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dharani Singh, A.I.R. 1968 SC 1210, an inference ought to be drawn that the petitioners, on completion of the maximum period of probation of one year, have been confirmed. I am not satisfied that the above rule applies to artisan staff promoted as Train Examiners. The said Chapter I, Section B, of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual sets out rules for recruitment and training o class III, class IV and workshop staff. The section is divided into several sub-sections. Rule 101 of Chapter I mentions the extent of application of the Rules and it is stated that the rules in subsections I to III apply to class III and workshop and artisan staff of the Indian Railways, it is further stated that the branches and groups dealt with in the section are those detailed below that rule. The details refer to Mechanical Engineering Department (to which the Train Examiners belong) and the following classes of employees in that department are specified:- (i) Skilled Staff, (ii) Trade Apprentices, (iii) Apprentice Mechanics, (iv) Apprentice Train Examiners. It is significant to note that reference is made only to Apprentice Train Examiners and not also to Train Examiners (i.e. direct recruits) and not also to Train Examiners appointed by promotion from the artisan staff. That being so, the rules in the section do not apply to Train Examiners appointed by promotion from the artisan staff. The scheme of sub-secs. II and III in the section also helps me to hold that the rules in sub-sec. I are applicable only to the recruits from the open market to the various specified posts in the departments mentioned. Rule 109 refers to direct recruits through the Railway Service Commission, the procedure for which is described in Rules 110 to 115. In sub-sec. II and III in the section also helps me to hold that the rules in sub-sec. I are applicable only to the recruits from the open market to the various specified posts in the departments mentioned. Rule 109 refers to direct recruits through the Railway Service Commission, the procedure for which is described in Rules 110 to 115. In sub-sec. III recruitment to the group of officers in the various departments mentioned in Rule 101 has been dealt with and qualifications for recruitment of these classes have been prescribed. Rule 138 deals with the group of Train Examiners and, as in the case of o her groups, mentions recruitment to the category of Apprentice Train Examiners only and the qualifications and training required for them. The only reference made to the skilled artisans selected for posting as Train Examiners is in respect of their training. No rules are laid down for their appointment by promotion. On a consideration of the scheme of sub-secs. I to III in the Sec. I hesitate to hold that Rule 104 dealing with probation applies to Train Examiners promoted to grade D from amongst the artisan staff. 12. Apart from that, Rule 104 does not apply to the petitioners as they were not appointed on probation at any time. 13. It was next contended that even though the petitioners have not been formally appointed substantively and even though no inference of their substantive appointment can be drawn on the basis of the said Rule 104, they ought to be deemed to have been conferred the substantive status by reason of the various Circulars issued by the Railway Board and other competent railway authorities. These Circulars are also relied upon to contend that the petitioners could not be reverted unless disciplinary action is taken against them. 14. I shall now deal with the Circulars to which a reference has been made. These Circulars are also relied upon to contend that the petitioners could not be reverted unless disciplinary action is taken against them. 14. I shall now deal with the Circulars to which a reference has been made. On the 21st May, 1956, the Northern Railway issued a Circular entitled "Protection of Employees Officiating in Higher Grades for long Periods." It refers to the Railway Board letter dated 22nd November, 1950, and a further clarifactory letter dated 15th December, 1954, which stated, inter alia, that reversion on ground of unsuitability would not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and sates that, on a further thinking of the matter in the light of a large number of temporary posts continuing over long periods, the railway servants could not be deprived of the protection of Article 311 to which they would have been entitled had those posts been made permanent and had they been confirmed. The instruction issued was that the performance of every railway servant officiating in a higher grade would be adjudicated by the competent officer before the expiry of twelve months of the total officiating service and if the performance was not satisfactory, either the railway servant might be reverted on the ground of unsuitability or he might be warned that his work was no: satisfactory but he would be permitted to draw his increments on the assumption that his performance would improve during the next six months, and after total officiating service of eighteen months either the persons should be declared fit for retention in the grade or should be reverted on the ground of unsuitability it was further stated that any person permitted to continue for unsatisfactory work without following the procedure prescribed in Discipline and Appeal Rules would be confirmed. It was contended that the petitioners having been continued as Train Examiners for more than eighteen months they ought to be deemed to have been con-firmed. The Circular envisages that the employees continuously officiating for one year with satisfactory work or for eighteen months if their work is found unsatisfactory after one year and the period is extended by another six months and their work improves, will be confirmed; this means that a formal order of confirmation is necessary for these employees to confer upon them the permanent status. As no such order has been passed in the case of the two petitioners, this Circular is of no assistance to them in their claim for permanent status. Their reversion also is not for unsatisfactory work and it was not necessary to follow the procedure prescribed in Discipline and Appeal Rules as provided in this Circular. 15. In a meeting of the Personnel Officers of the Northern Railway held on 2nd and 3rd December, 1964, it was pointed out that an assurance had been given to the Union at the highest level that there would be no reversion of officiating employees who had completed eighteen months of `officiating service and the Personnel Officers were asked to enure that this assurance was duly honoured; it was also decided that the reversion of officiating employees for specific offences should ordinarily be resorted after complying with the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Though this was a policy decision taken at the level of the Personnel Officers having regard to the circumstances then existing, it does not prevent reversions necessitated by exigencies of situation arising later. The decision, in particular, has no legal sanction. 16. In a letter dated the 13th July, 1965, the General Manager stated that any person who is permitted to officiate beyond eighteen months cannot be reverted for unsatisfactory work without following the procedure prescribed in the Discipline and Appeal Rules. This is merely a revival of the administrative instructions contained in the Circular dated 21st May, 1956, which appears to have been cancelled by a letter of the General Manager dated the 9th March, 1960. 17. These Circular Letters do not confer any right upon the railway employees to be retained in the higher post in which they may be officiating; they merely enunciate a policy which cannot be regarded as inflexible. If any particular situation demands, the railway authorities are not precluded by these Circular Letters from reverting the officiating staff. They also do not have the effect of conferring upon the railway employees officiating for more than eighteen months the status of permanent employees. 18. If any particular situation demands, the railway authorities are not precluded by these Circular Letters from reverting the officiating staff. They also do not have the effect of conferring upon the railway employees officiating for more than eighteen months the status of permanent employees. 18. On the 3rd August, 1968, the Railway Board decided that an employee officiating in a regular manner by virtue of his seniority-cum-suitability or position in the panel against a permanent vacancy should be considered for confirmation after one year of his service provided he fulfils other conditions for such confirmation and desired that fresh review be made with a view to seeing what temporary posts could be converted into permanent ones. This position does not help the petitioners who were not in fact confirmed. 19. In the circumstances, I am unable to hold that the petitioners were appointed or are to be deemed to have been appointed as Train Examiners in a substantive capacity or that their reversion is illegal in the face of these administrative instructions for non-implementation thereof. 20. It was next urged that the implementation of the Railway Board's Circular Letter dated 27th October, 1965, which been quoted and analysed above, by upgrading the post of D Grade Train Examiners to C grade to provide for appointment of Apprentice Train Examiners in grade C, in the way it has been done. with particular reference to the cases of the petitioners, has been rendered inconsistent with the scheme of the letter by reason of the decision of the Supreme Court in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1889. It may be recalled that the said scheme envisaged that the Apprentice Train Examiners who had already been or would be absorbed in C grade upto 31st March, 1966 be first accommodated in C grade against the quota of 80 per cent vacancies reserved for them and that a number of vacancies likely to occur during the period of apprenticeship of the apprentices under training on the 1st April, 1966, equal to the number of apprentices under training on that date should be kept in reserve for their absorption in C grade after completion of apprenticeship. This part of the scheme was struck down by the Supreme Court as violating the guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This part of the scheme was struck down by the Supreme Court as violating the guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The validity of the other parts of the scheme was not challenged before the Supreme Court and is not challenged also in these petitions. The provision in the scheme for upgrading of 50 per cent of C grade posts, reservation of 80 per cent vacancies in C grade in favour of apprentice Train Examiners and for appointment of Apprentice Train Examiners who had undergone apprenticeship for five years directly to grade C record merely administrative policy decisions which cannot be successfully attacked in petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 21. It was, however, contended that under paragraph 2 (b) of the letter, 80 per cent vacancies in grade C were to be filled by Apprentice Train Examiners "who have successfully completed the prescribed apprenticeship mentioned in paragraph 2 below" and that the said paragraph 2 refers only to Apprentice Train Examiners recruited on and from 1st April, 1966 and completed their training for a period of five years (three years in the case of Diploma-holders) and that, therefore, the occasion for direct appointment of Apprentice Train Examiners to grade C would arise only in 1969 in the case of Diploma-holders and in 1971 in the case of others; on this argument, it was contended that the appointment of the six Apprentice Train Examiners, who were not Diploma holders, to grade C in 1969, by upgrading D grade posts is contrary to the scheme. This argument, however, overlooks the additional provision in the scheme which has not been struck down by the Supreme Court shat Apprentice Train Examiners, undergoing training as well at the formulation of the scheme who would not be brought on to the working posts before 1st April, 1966 would be required to undergo training for the extended period of five years on completion of which they would be put on the working posts in grade C. Paragraph 2 (b) has to be read and reconciled with this provision and when so done, the appointment of the six Apprentice Train Examiners covered by the aforesaid provision to grade C by upgrading the grade D posts cannot be regarded as violating the scheme as a whole. 22. 22. The scheme in the letter dated 27th October, 1965 has been amended in certain respects subsequently during the pendency of the proceedings in Roshanlal Tandon's case before the Supreme Court and after the decision of the Supreme Court in that case. Reference has also been made to these amendments to spell out that the appointment of the six apprentice Train Examiners to grade C is not justified. 23. It appears that the Supreme Court had passed a stay order in Roshan Lal Tandon's case, and the Railway Board, in view of the stay order, issued instructions that the implementation of the orders contained in the letter dated 27th October, 1965, should be held in abeyance. Neither the stay order nor the Railway Board's order of 19th August, 1968, has been brought on record and it is not known whether the stay order and the Railway Board's order were limited in operation only to promotion of Apprentice Train Examiners in grade D to grade C, which was the only issue for consideration by the Supreme Court. The subsequent letter of the Railway Board dated 13th September, 1968 clearly indicates that in Roshanlal Tandon's case no objection was raised to the operation of the orders in the letter of the 27th October, 1965, prescribing that with effect from 1st April, 1966, all Apprentice Train Examiners on successful completion of the increased period of training be absorbed in grade C. If the stay order was restricted as stated above, no objet ion could be taken to the appointment of the Apprentice Train Examiners to grade C directly by upgrading a suitable number of grade D posts even during the pendency of the petition before the Supreme Court. The appointments of Awasthi, Auriya and the other four Apprentice Train Examiners to grade C was made after the decision of the Supreme Court in Roshanlal Tandon's case and hence no exception can be taken to the implementation of the scheme in the Railway Board's letter dated the 27th October, 1965. 24. The appointments of Awasthi, Auriya and the other four Apprentice Train Examiners to grade C was made after the decision of the Supreme Court in Roshanlal Tandon's case and hence no exception can be taken to the implementation of the scheme in the Railway Board's letter dated the 27th October, 1965. 24. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, the Railway Board issued instructions on the 13th September, 1968, that the promotions of Apprentice Train Examiners in grade D to grade C made in conformity with the orders of 27th October, 1965 be treated as null and void and that promotions of grade D Train Examiners irrespective of whether they were initially recruited as Apprentice Train Examiners or were promoted from the lower grades, be made by selection. These instructions are of no avail to the petitioners as they do not affect the appointment of the six Apprentice Train Examiners, directly to grade C by upgrading grade D post. 25. The orders and the letters dated 27th October, 1965, and the 13th September, 1968, were modified by the order dated 2nd July, 1970, which were issued after these petitions were filed. These modified orders directed an mass promotion of grade C Train Examiners, both Apprentice train Examiners and promotees, to grade C irrespective of the quota of vacancies reserved for promotes. The orders also directed that 50 per cent of the vacancies arising in grade C after the 1st April, 1966, should be maintained in that grade and the remaining 50 per cent be downgraded to D grade to be filled by promotion of skilled artisans and 50 per cent of the vacancies maintained in C grade should be filled by direct (recruitment of Apprentice Train Examiners with five years training to the extent of 80 per cent thereof and the remaining 20 per cent by promotes from D grade. As the question arising in the writ petitions is regarding the validity of the reversion of the petitioners in the state of affairs existing in 1969, it is not necessary to consider whether the petitioners are entitled to promotion to grade C under these modified instructions. If these modified instructions are in any way disregarded, the petitioners would have a fresh cause of action and are at liberty to approach this Court for such relief as might be admissible. 26. If these modified instructions are in any way disregarded, the petitioners would have a fresh cause of action and are at liberty to approach this Court for such relief as might be admissible. 26. I am, therefore, not convinced that the appointment of the six Apprentice Train Examiners directly to grade C by upgrading certain D grade posts which involved the reversion of the two petitioners on the reduction of the strength of grade D posts is in any way illegal. 27. It may be mentioned that the reversion of the petitioners is not due to a specific fault of theirs and hence it is not hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Their reversion was caused in effect by the abolition of posts in D grade consequent upon addition of posts in C grade by upgrading some D grade posts. A Full Bench of this Court has by a majority held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Prem Behari Lal Saxena, 1968 ALJ 948 that Article 311(2) of the Constitution does not apply to a case where the services of even a permanent Government servant are dispensed with on the abolition of a permanent post held by him. This position is all the more true in the case of reversion of officiating employees on abolition of the posts held by them. 28. The next argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that the Train Examiners in grade D who were junior to the petitioners have been retained, while the petitioners though senior to them have been reverted. There is no common cadre of Train Examiners for the entire Northern Railway; as stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Railway, the cadres are division-wise. It is fairly conceded that no one in Lucknow Division junior to the petitioners is continuing as Train Examiner except under the stay orders of this Court. That being so, it cannot be said that the reversion of the petitioners is contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution. 29. It was lastly contended that the orders of revision of the petitioners were made by an authority subordinate to the authority which appointed them as Train Examiners. The orders of reversion were passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer. That being so, it cannot be said that the reversion of the petitioners is contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution. 29. It was lastly contended that the orders of revision of the petitioners were made by an authority subordinate to the authority which appointed them as Train Examiners. The orders of reversion were passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer. The petitioners rely upon the orders of the General Manager dated 20th April, 1966, allotting the petitioners and others to various divisions of the Northern Railway after completion of the Intensive Train Course and it is urged that their appointment as Train Examiners has been made by the General Manager. The allotment of posting of the petitioners and others to different divisions would not be orders of appointment. As already held above, the petitioners have been continuously working as Train Examiners since long before they were sent for Intensive Training and it is the initial order of appointment which is relevant in considering whether the subsequent reversion was made by an authority lower than the appointing authority. The petitioners have not produced the initial orders of their appointment but it appears from Northern Railway publication on powers and establishment matters delegated by the General Manager that the Divisional Personnel Officers have full powers to appoint all class III staff. Presumably the appointment of the petitioners as Train Examiners was made by the Divisional Personnel Officer in the first instance and it is that authority which has reverted them. Apart from that, Article 311(2) does not apply to reversions but only to dismissals and removals. It is not the case of the petitioners that case of the petitioners that the Divisional Personnel Officer had no power to revert the petitioners but their case is that the reversion by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority is illegal. 30. After carefully considering all the arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioners, I remain unsatisfied that the reversion of the petitioners is in any way illegal. It follows therefore that the petitions have no force. Accordingly both the petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.