JUDGMENT : K.B. Panda, J. - Both the O.J.Cs were heard analogous as the petitioners in both the applications are under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seek to quash a decision of the Government in consequence of which both of them were reduced in rank from Gr. I Stenographers to Gr. II Stenographers. The impugned orders are Annexure-D and Annexure-B, in O.J.C. 597 of 70 and O.J.C. 670/70 respectively, communicated to the petitioners by the Secretary to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (R.D.C.) on 16-6-1970 and purported to have been based on Government decision. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the two O.J.Cs are as follows : At one time the following four incumbents. (1) Sri U.N. Mishra From 8-2-1961. (2) Sri Jagannath Jethi From 5-5-1962. (3) P.K. Biswas From 1-7-1962 and (4) Sri P.K. Bhattacharya From 17-10-1962. were holding the posts of Gr. II Stenographers in the office of the R.D.C., Central Division, when on 14-7-1965 two such posts were upgraded by the Government. Accordingly opp. party no. 2 the then R.D.C., held an efficiency test of Gr. II Stenographers. The first three of the above named stenographers did not appear in the test by way of protest on the ground that promotion to Gr. 1 post had been in the past automatic according to seniority. It is only no. 4, namely, Sri P.K. Bhattacharya, who appeared in the test. The other three had made a representation against the test held, but it was rejected by Sri P.K. Chakravarty, the then R.D.C. on 1-9-1965 in the following manner : "The other stenographers who have refused to sit for test fore go their claim. The question of appointment by seniority does not arise in this case." Annexure-B in O.J.C. 597/70). As Sri P.K. Bhattacharya (petitioner in O.J.C. 597/70) alone appeared, he was appointed as Gr. I Stenographer on a time scale of Rs. 195-10-235-15-250-EB-15-310-20-350/- with effect from 1-9-1965 as per Annexure-C. Subsequently Sri Upendranath Misra (petitioner in O.J.C. 670/70) was promoted to a permanent post of Gr. I Stenographer by an order dated 17-2-1967 under Ancexure-A of which the relevant portions are extracted below : Sri Upendranath Mishra, Gr. II Stenographer, of this office is appointed as a Grade I Stenographer in the time scale pay of Rs. I Stenographer by an order dated 17-2-1967 under Ancexure-A of which the relevant portions are extracted below : Sri Upendranath Mishra, Gr. II Stenographer, of this office is appointed as a Grade I Stenographer in the time scale pay of Rs. 195-10-235-15-250-EB-15-31 0-20-350/- with effect from the date of the order of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner i.e. from 13-2-1967 in consequence of the up-gradation of the post sanctioned in Government Order No. 47077-B dated 14-7-1965. By order of the B.D.O. Sd. R.K. Patnaik Under Secretary. X X X X X X Copy forwarded to Sri Upendranath Mishra, Gr. II Stenographer x x for information and necessary action. 2. Shri Mishra should improve the quality of taking dictation. Sd. R.K. Patnaik Under Secretary." When the matter stood thus, on a representation from Sri P.K. Biswas against the appointment of Sri P.K. Bhattcharya to Grade I Stenographer post, the matter was reviewed at the Government level and it was held that the initial appointments to Grade I posts of the two petitioners were wrong and illegal. Accordingly the Secretary to R.D.C., Sri K.C. Misra, intimated the impugned order thus : "As Government have been pleased to order that since none of the Grade II, Stenographers in this office were actually suitable for being promoted to the rank of Grade I Stenographer, Shri Prafulla Kumar Bhattacharya who has since been so promoted as Grade I, Stenographer is reverted to the next below rank of Grade II, Stenographer with effect from 16th, June, 1970 A.N. " A similar notice was given to petitioner Sri Upendranath Mishra which are now under challenge, as aforesaid. 3. In the counter filed by opp. parties 1 and 2 the facts are not challenged. However, it was stated- "In the absence of any cadre rule governing the matter of promotion of Stenographers, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack, decided to give promotion on the basis of a permit test." At another place it is stated that the contention of petitioner Sri Upendra Mishra that he was promoted on the basis of merit-cum-seniority is not true: but he was promoted only on the basis of seniority. It is also stated- "From the available records it is found that the seniority was the guide line in deciding the promotion of the petitioner (Sri U.N. Mishra). It is also stated- "From the available records it is found that the seniority was the guide line in deciding the promotion of the petitioner (Sri U.N. Mishra). Since Government passed the order of reversion after examining the records, there is no question of violation of provision of article 311 of the Constitution of India." The reversion in both the cases were not by way of punishment but by way of implementation of the Government order on administrative reasons not connected with the conduct of the petitioners without any proceeding or enquiry into the matter which was not warranted. 4. Admittedly petitioner Sri Bhattacharya had been working as Gr. I Stenographer with effect from 1-9-1965 and Sri U.N. Mishra since 13-2-1967 till they received the order of reduction which was passed on 16-6-1970. In this background the sole point that falls for consideration is if the R.D.C. appointed the two petitioners illegally or improperly so that Government's decision altering the same is justified ? 5. In the counter, as already quoted, in R.D.C's office there is no carde rule governing the matter of promotion of Stenographers. There is also no prescribed standard laid down anywhere to which a Gr. I Stenographer should confirm to deserve the appointment. The learned Government Advocate, in the absence of any such rule, relied on Secretariat Rules, which obviously do not apply to the incumbents of the R.D.C's office. To do justice to the case we had to call for the Government records to be satisfied as to the reasoning's adopted ; for declaring the appointments made by the R.D.C. to the post of Gr. I Stenographers improper or contrary to rules. The learned Government Advocate was good enough to produce the same for scrutiny both the parties who referred to certain salient nothings from which it was clear that there was no prescribed standard or rule. Thus the matter had to be decided in consonance with equity and good conscience. 6. Under the Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962, the appointing authority for the Stenographer is the Head of the Department, that is, in the present case the R.D.C. The R.D.C. resorted to a test and appointed Sri Bhattacharya and the second R.D.C. also resorted to a test but held that "there is nothing to choose between the two" and gave promotion to Sri U.N. Mishra on the ground of seniority. We find, there is nothing wrong about the methods adopted by the respective R.D.Cs. The work is going on with these petitioners and there has been apparently no complaint of the bosses against their performance. On the representation of Sri P.K. Biswas, at Government level some considerations were made behind the back of the petitioners without any reference to their bosses as to their performance or even without reference to their Character Rolls during the relevant period and the impugned order of reduction was passed. This necessarily affected their pay and so cannot be said to beyond the pale of Article 311(2) of the Constitution as having not been done by way of punishment. Whatever may be the terminology used, the impact of it on the petitioners is great affecting their status and emoluments. This being the position, it would have been fair to give them a chance to have their say in the matter before any adverse order was passed against them. The matter was not judged with reference to their performance at the relevant time when the impugned order was passed in 1970. In view of the caution given to Sri U.N. Mishra in his appointment to Gr. I post, it might be that he would have strained against himself much to improve his standard. At-least, the fact remains that there was no complaint about their performance as Gr. I Stenographers from any quarters. That being so, it is against natural justice to pass an order behind their back which would adversely affect their interest. Their appointing authorities have done nothing contrary to rules, there being none. Nor have they acted in any capricious or objectionable manner while appointing the petitioners into Gr. I posts. When once so appointed by the proper authority, they acquired a status which can only be disturbed for misconduct or in any regular disciplinary proceeding or for proved inefficiency no matter in whatever innocuous manner the order is passed. As is clear, the nothings in the Government file are conflicting. On 8-9-1968 a note was put to the Secretary wherein it was stated that in case of promotions, as it appears from R.D.C's letter at page 27/c, the criterion was both seniority and merit judged from the entries in the C.C. Rolls. In O.J.C. 597/70 under Annexure-B, the decision of the Government was communicated by the Addl. On 8-9-1968 a note was put to the Secretary wherein it was stated that in case of promotions, as it appears from R.D.C's letter at page 27/c, the criterion was both seniority and merit judged from the entries in the C.C. Rolls. In O.J.C. 597/70 under Annexure-B, the decision of the Government was communicated by the Addl. Secretary to the Government in the Revenue Department to the R.D.C. wherein it is stated in para 3 thus : "The resultant vacancies in the post of Gr. I Stenographers may be kept vacant sometime and the work may be managed with the existing Gr. II Stenographers. Meanwhile performance of all the Gr. II Stenographers may be watched. Keeping in view of their performance including those for the years 67-68 two of them may be promoted to the rank of Gr. I Stenographers on the basis of seniority, subject to the elimination of the unfit." This is the final decision of the Government which is not in any way inconsistent with the-procedure adopted by the R.D.Cs. in appointing the two petitioners to Gr. I Stenographers. It is unnecessary to repeat the same process again. Further we have already held that the Government Order is contrary to Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 and repugnant to the protection a civil servant is entitled to under the Constitution. As such, we would allow O.J.C. 597 of 1970 and quash the order of reduction (Annexure-D). In O.J.C. 670 of 1970 wherein Sri U.N. Mishra is the petitioner, no body has challenged his appointment to Gr. I post, and his application is also allowed and the order of reduction passed against him under Annexure-B is quashed. 7. Let a writ of certiorari be issued accordingly. Both the applications are allowed, but in the circumstances, no costs. G.K. Misra, C.J. - I agree. Final Result : Allowed