JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Petitioner Suraj Bahadur Saxena challenged the order dated 11th January,1971 reverting him to the post of Sub Inspector in the Central Excise Department. He has also questioned the validity of an order passed by the Assistant Collector Central Excise directing the recovery of Rs. 4,828.16 in sixty instalments from his pay as communicated to him by the Assistant Collector (Hd.Qrs.), Allahabad on 21st March,1972. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed a Sub Inspector in the Central Excise Department on 1st of June,1949. He passed the necessary departmental examination in the year 1953 and in due course was confirmed as a Sub Inspector with effect from 20th of October,1953. On 7th of March,1956 he was promoted as an officiating Inspector. According to the rules as they stood at that time he had to pass the departmental examination within two years of his appointment or within the first two chances occurring after his appointment whichever was later. The petitioner appeared in the departmental examination held in the year 1967. He was declared successful in all papers excepting paper No.1. He was not able to pass in all the papers of the departmental examination within two years of his appointment as also within first two chances occurring after his appointment. In the year 1958, he was placed under suspension and remained so till the year 1962, when the departmental enquiry conducted against him was finalised and he was given a censure entry. After being reinstated, the petitioner, again took the departmental examination held in December,1963 but due to certain reason he was excluded from the examination. His exclusion from the examination was followed by a notice dated 16th December,1963 asking him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings for disobedience of certain orders be not taken against him. According to the petitioner, he submitted an explanation and thereafter nothing further was done in the matter. He continued to officiate as an Inspector and earned regular increments up to the year 1967. As he did not clear all the papers of the departmental examination he was served with a notice dated 11th of January,1968 requiring him to show cause why he should not be reverted to his substantive post. He continued to officiate as an Inspector and earned regular increments up to the year 1967. As he did not clear all the papers of the departmental examination he was served with a notice dated 11th of January,1968 requiring him to show cause why he should not be reverted to his substantive post. he submitted an explanation and further prayed that as he had become over 45 years of age it was difficult for him to clear the departmental examination. He requested that he may be exempted from appearing in the first paper as had been done in the case of one Shri R.K. Saran who had similarly failed to clear the aforesaid examination. However, the petitioner was not granted an exemption as prayed for by him and he was requested to take his examination which was to be held in June,1969. He took that examination but could not succeed. The petitioner made yet another representation to the Central Board of Excise in Customs (Annexure 'F' to the petition) requesting that he be exempted from appearing in the Ist paper. The representation made by the petitioner was not accepted and by means of an order dated 11th January,1971, he was directed to be reverted to his substantive post of Sub Inspector as he had failed to pass the departmental examination for Inspectors in full within two years of his promotion as Inspector as also in the extended chances, as required under Rule 5 (iii) of Departmental Examination Rule,1949. 3. The petitioner questioned this validity of the reversion order by filing the present writ petition which was admitted on 4th of February,1971. During the pendency of this petition, the Assistant Collector by letter dated 21st of Marcy,1972 informed him that the Collector has been pleased to order that an amount of Rs. 4,829.16P. may be recovered from him in sixty instalments at the rate of Rs. 81/- per month for 59 months and the remaining Rs. 50.16P in 10th instalments as the same had been over paid to him. According to the respondents the Collector has directed the recovery of this amount as the petitioner having failed to pass the examination with in the prescribed period, under Rule 6(2) (ii) of the Departmental Examination Rules, 1949, he was not entitled to any increment in his pay. The petitioner was wrongly given the increments and had been over paid. According to the respondents the Collector has directed the recovery of this amount as the petitioner having failed to pass the examination with in the prescribed period, under Rule 6(2) (ii) of the Departmental Examination Rules, 1949, he was not entitled to any increment in his pay. The petitioner was wrongly given the increments and had been over paid. This amount, therefore, could be recovered from him under Article 48 of the Accounts Code (Volume 1) read with Article 22 of the Accounts Code (Volume IV), which provides the manner in which over payments made to a Government servant are required to be adjusted. The petitioner claims that the respondents have no jurisdiction to recover the amount from his pay specially when there was in fact no over payment made to him. Accordingly, he got the petition amended by adding grounds for challenging the order for the recovery of Rs. 4829.16P from his pay and claiming a relief for quashing the same. 4. Rule 3 of the Departmental Examination Rules provides that every officiating and temporary officers appointed by promotion from within the department is required to pass the prescribed departmental examination, unless he is exempted from passing it as provided in Rule 7. According to Rule 5, an officer appointed from within the department have to pass the departmental examination prescribed for the grade to which he is promoted within two years of his appointment or within the first two changes occurring after his appointment, whichever is later. In a case where an officer is not able to pass the examination within the period mentioned above the Central Board of Revenue has been given the power to extend the same for good and sufficient reason. Rule 7 (a) (i) as it stood prior to its amendment in the year 1962 provided that an officer, who while holding a post in lower grade in Central Excise Department, has passed or has been exempted from passing the departmental examination prescribed for that grade, will not on promotion, be required to pass the departmental examination prescribed for the grade to which he is promoted. However, there are certain provisions added to this Rule and the second proviso states that a Supervisor (Sub Inspector) who is promoted to another grade should pass the examination prescribed for that grade in all the subjects, unless specifically exempted by the Board in any paper. However, there are certain provisions added to this Rule and the second proviso states that a Supervisor (Sub Inspector) who is promoted to another grade should pass the examination prescribed for that grade in all the subjects, unless specifically exempted by the Board in any paper. Accordingly, the petitioner on being promoted as Inspector was required to pass the departmental examination for Inspector grade in all the subjects as he had not been specifically exempted by the Board in any paper. Rule 7 (ii) provides that an officer who passes the examination in one or more papers but fails in some papers may at the next permissible chance appear only in those papers in which he has failed. According to this Rule as the petitioner had cleared all papers excepting the 1st paper, he was entitled to appear in that paper alone in subsequent years. Rule 7 (b) empowers the Central Board of Revenue to exempt an officer from passing either the whole or a part of the examination for any special reasons. 5. According to Rule 6 (ii) a person who is required to pass a departmental examination is not allowed to draw further increments if he fails to pass the examination within the prescribed period. Sub-rule (3) further provides that repeated failure to pass the examination will entail loss of appointment in the case of directly recruited officers and reversion to the lower post in the case of others. If the Rules, as they stood prior to their being amended in the year 1962, are taken into consideration it is obvious that the petitioner has failed to pass the departmental examination in all the papers within the prescribed period as also within the extended period (as he was allowed to appear in 1st Paper for 1969 Departmental examination wherein he failed), allowed to him. He has also not been exempted from taking examination in the first paper. Prima facie his reversion will be in order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that Rule 7 (d) gives to the Central Board of Revenue a power to exempt an officer from passing either whole or a part of the examination for any special reasons. The Board cannot exercise this power in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. Prima facie his reversion will be in order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that Rule 7 (d) gives to the Central Board of Revenue a power to exempt an officer from passing either whole or a part of the examination for any special reasons. The Board cannot exercise this power in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. He contends that in the past whenever a Sub Inspector was given an officiating chance to work as the Inspector and if by the time he attained the age of 45 years he did not clear the Ist Paper of the Department Examination, the Board of Revenue exempted him from appearing in that paper. In his petition he cited the cases of Sarvasri Ram Lal, S.N. Sharma and R.K. Saran, who could not clear all the papers of the Departmental Examination by the time they reached the age of 45 years. After attaining that age, they appealed to the Board praying that they be exempted from appearing in the paper which they had not been able to clear and the Board accepted their prayer and granted them necessary exemption. The petitioner claims that his case was similar to those mentioned above and there is absolutely no reason why he should have been picked out for differential treatment and why the exemption prayed for by him should not have been granted. 7.I may, however, make clear at this stage the leanred counsel for the petitioner did not argue that the provisions of Rule 7 (d) of the departmental Examination Rules authorising the Central Board of Revenue to except any officer from passing either the whole or a part of the examination for some special reasons is invalid as it does not lay down any criterion or guiding principle for the exercise of that discretion. He could not argue this because if the argument succeeded and the provision was struck down, the Central Board of Revenue would not have been left with any power to grant any exemption to the petitioner and the petitioner could not have claimed that in the3 circumstances the Board should have exercised this power in this favour. He could not argue this because if the argument succeeded and the provision was struck down, the Central Board of Revenue would not have been left with any power to grant any exemption to the petitioner and the petitioner could not have claimed that in the3 circumstances the Board should have exercised this power in this favour. Under the Rules, as it stands, the Central Board of Revenue has been given a very wide power to exercise its discretion in granting exemption from appearing in all or some of the papers in the Departmental Examination depending upon the special circumstances of each case. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim that merely because exemption has been granted to some officers it should necessarily be granted him also. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been explained that the Board considered the case for exemption in the case of officers who crossed the age of 45 years before clearing all the papers provided their record of work had been satisfactory as also of those officer who were promoted after attaining an age round about 45 years. It was pointed out that Sri Ram Lal who was a non matriculate had been promoted to the grade of Inspector at the age of 45 years two months. He passed the departmental Examination for Sub Inspector's grade in 1951. His record of service was satisfactory. Considering his education qualification and the age at which he had been promoted, the Board considered it fair to exempt him from clearing the departmental examination. The respondent's were not in a position to say anything about the circumstances in which Sri Shri Narain Sharma had been exempted as the records pertaining to this case had been destroyed and were not available. So far as Sri R.K. Saran was concerned, he was promoted as Inspector at the age of 46 years 3 months. His record of service was also satisfactory. Therefore, the Board granted him an exemption from appearing in first paper in the year 1965. It was pointed out that so far as the petitioner's case was concerned, he had been promoted to the grade of Inspector Central Excise in the year 1956 when he was only 36 years old. His record of service was also satisfactory. Therefore, the Board granted him an exemption from appearing in first paper in the year 1965. It was pointed out that so far as the petitioner's case was concerned, he had been promoted to the grade of Inspector Central Excise in the year 1956 when he was only 36 years old. According to the Departmental Examination Rules, he should have completed the prescribed departmental examination for the grade of Inspector within two years of the date of his promotion i.e. by the time he attained the age of 38 years, which he failed to do. Thereafter, the petitioner had 7 more years in which he could clear the departmental examination. The Board permitted him to remain as an Inspector for about 14 years but still the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity to pass the examination. Besides this, his record of service was also not considered to be satisfactory. His application for being exempted from taking the departmental examination was therefore turned down. By means of a supplementary affidavit the petitioner has tried to show that so far as the case of Sri Shri Narain Sharma was concerned he was promoted to the grade of Inspector on 11.11.1959 at the age of 42 years but was exempted from appearing in the Departmental Examination. Learned counsel contends that case of the respondents that only such Inspectors who had been promoted round about the age of 45 years were being exempted from taking departmental examination should not therefore be accepted. As stated earlier the record pertaining to Sri Shri Narain Sharma's service has been destroyed and is no more available. In the circumstances, on the basis of the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is not possible to conclude that Sri Shri Narain Sharma had been exempted from taking the departmental examination merely on the ground of age. Exact circumstances and the reasons for exempting Sri Shri Narain Sharma from taking the departmental examination are now not known. Be that as it may, the respondents adopted a criterion for granting exemption from appearing in the first paper of the departmental examination, but petitioner's case did not fit in with that criterion as his record of service was not considered to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the respondents cannot be accused of treating the petitioner in a discriminatory manner. 8. Be that as it may, the respondents adopted a criterion for granting exemption from appearing in the first paper of the departmental examination, but petitioner's case did not fit in with that criterion as his record of service was not considered to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the respondents cannot be accused of treating the petitioner in a discriminatory manner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Sri Surendra Prasad Srivastva v. The Union of India, Civil Misc. Writ No. 1332 of 1972. D/d. 4.8.1972 in which the respondents had drawn up panels for the year 1956, 1966 and 1971 for making promotions merely upon the basis of merits and without taking into consideration the seniority of various candidates. These panels were not drawn up strictly in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 216 (h) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. The penal for the year 1971 was recast without touching the panel for the years 1956 and 1966. This court came to the conclusion that non compliance of provisions of paragraph 216 (h) was an irregularity which could be condoned by the Board, and the Board had in fact condoned the irregularity in the constitution of the panels. After the irregularity had been condoned, the respondents could not recast the panel for the year 1971 alone without interfering with the panels for the year 1956 and 1966 also, as they stood on identical footing. In my opinion, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot derive any advantage from this decision, as his case did not stand on an identical footing with that of others to whom exemption had been granted by the Board. Moreover, we find that the Board had turned down petitioner's request for exemption in the year 1968. Thereafter, he prayed for another chance to appear in the first paper in the year 1969 which request was allowed, but unfortunately for him he failed to clear it. He cannot, after more than two years after his request for exemption had been turned down be heard to say that the Board should have acceded to his request. The request for relief in this regard appears to be belated. 9. He cannot, after more than two years after his request for exemption had been turned down be heard to say that the Board should have acceded to his request. The request for relief in this regard appears to be belated. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the 1949 Rules were amended by a Circular dated 2nd of February,1963, issued by the Central Board of Revenue (Annexure H), which made a change in the second and third proviso to Rule 7 (a) (i) of the Departmental Examination Rules Proviso (2) which provides that a Supervisor (Sub-Inspector) who is promoted to another grade should pass the examination prescribed for that grade in all the subjects, unless specifically exempted by the Board in any paper, was substituted by following proviso:- "A Sub Inspector who is promoted to the Inspectors grade should if he has already passed the departmental examination prescribed for the S.I. grade, pass the departmental examination, only in paper III Administration, paper IV 'law' and paper Viva Voice, unless specifically exempted by the Board in any of these papers." 10. In paragraph 3, of the circular it was clearly provided that the order in respect of amendment of rule was to take effect from the date of its issue, i.e. 2nd of February,1963. According to the learned counsel, after the amendment came into force in the year 1963, the petitioner who had already passed the departmental examination prescribed for Sub Inspector's grade, was required to pass the departmental examination only in Paper III Administration, paper IV Law and paper V Viva Voice. he was no more required to clear papers Nos. I and II. Since he has already cleared all the papers, excepting paper No.I which he was no more required to clear, he should have taken to clear, the departmental examination and as such he cannot now be reverted on the ground that he has failed to pass the departmental examination within prescribed time. 11. I am unable to accept this submission. The order making amendment in the rule has been filed as Annexure H. In paragraph 3, it is clearly mentioned that it takes effect from the date of its issue. 11. I am unable to accept this submission. The order making amendment in the rule has been filed as Annexure H. In paragraph 3, it is clearly mentioned that it takes effect from the date of its issue. The amendment reads that a Sub Inspector who is promoted to the Inspector's grade should if he has already passed the departmental examination prescribed for the Sub Inspector's grade pass the departmental examination in paper III, IV and V only. If the amendment takes effect from the date of its issue, it means that it applies to a Sub Inspector who is promoted after 2.2.1963 and not to a Sub Inspector who had been promoted earlier. 12. The Departmental Examination Rules are not statutory rules. These rules have been framed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its executive powers. When the difficulty in interpreting them was brought to the notice of the Board of Revenue, it clarified it as far back as the year 1964 by means of a communication addressed to all the Collectors Excise, (Annexure E to the counter affidavit). The relevant portion of the communication runs thus:- "Please refer to the Board's letter No. 10(29/62-Ad. 11(A) dated the 2nd of February,1963 in which the Departmental Examination Rules for the officers of the Central Excise Department were amended to the effect that a Sub Inspector who has passed the Departmental Examination prescribed for that grade need not, on his promotion to the grade of Inspector, pass the Departmental Examination in papers I and II prescribed for that grade. The following points have been raised in connection with the above amendment:- (i) Whether the Inspector of Central Excise who had passed the Departmental Examination prescribed for the Sub Inspector's grade before his promotion to the grade of Inspector, and who passed the Departmental Examination for Inspector's grade in all papers except paper I and/or paper II before 2.2.1963 will be required to pass the examination in the outstanding papers I and/or II. (ii) ................................... (ii) ................................... (2) In this connection it may be stated that the Boards letter dated 2.2.1963 referred to above is effective from the date of its issue only and in this context Board's decision on the above points are as follows:- (i) The amended rule will be applicable in the case of those Inspectors of Central Excise only who have been appointed to the grade on or after 2.2.1963. Accordingly, Inspectors of Central Excise who were promoted to the grade from a date prior to 2.2.1963 will have to pass the Departmental Examination in all papers including papers I and II. (ii) .................." 13. This clearly indicates the intention of the Rule making body, an amending the proviso 2 to rule 7 of the Departmental Examination Rules. The two communications viz. Annexure H and Annexure E, make it clear that the procedure adopted by the Board of Revenue in respect of the Departmental Examination ever since 1964 has been that the Sub Inspector who were promoted as Inspector before 2.2.1963 were required to pass the departmental examination in all the papers including papers I and II, whereas those Sub Inspectors who are promoted after 2.2.1963 are required to pass the Departmental Examination only in papers III to V provided they had already passed the departmental examination for the Sub Inspector's grade. 14. Departmental Examination Rule being more executive instructions for holding departmental examination. These instructions could be changed or altered by the Central board of Revenue by issuing instructions through circulars to the persons concerned. Even if there had been some force in petitioner's contention that the Rule as framed in 1963 really meant what he is contending for, it is obvious that in the year 1964 the Board issued fresh instructions that the departmental examinations were to be held on the basis of Instructions contained to the circular letter dated 25th of May,1964 (Annexure I to the counter affidavit) and the rule stood altered thereafter. The Board had been holding departmental examinations on this basis for over eight years. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that this court should interpret the Rules, in a manner different from that in which the Board itself has interpreted them and has accordingly been acting upon them for over eight years. The Board had been holding departmental examinations on this basis for over eight years. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that this court should interpret the Rules, in a manner different from that in which the Board itself has interpreted them and has accordingly been acting upon them for over eight years. I, therefore, do not accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that he has passed the departmental examination in as much as he had already cleared papers III to V before the amendment to Rule 7 came into force in the year 1963. 15. The petitioner then argued that in as much as the order reverting him to the post of Sub Inspector states that he has failed to pass the departmental examination even in the extended chance given to him, it casts a stigma on him. Such reversion, therefore, is by way of punishment and amounts to reduction in rank. Since provisions of Article 311 of the constitution have not been complied with, the order of reversion is invalid. I am unable to accept this submission. In case where Government servant has failed to pass departmental examination a statement to that effect in the order does not in my opinion cast any stigma on him. It merely means is not proper to continue him in the post for which he has failed to pass the departmental examination. The fact that the petitioner has failed to pass the departmental examination within the period prescribed under rules does not require any explanation from him, and no question of affording him an opportunity to explain this fact arises. 16. In this connection learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the case of Syed Abbas Hussain Nagri v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1971 Andhra Pradesh 1 (FB). In that case although the order of reversion did not give any reason but it was stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner of that case had been not found fit by the Public service Commission Learned Judges came to the conclusion saying that a person is not fit to hold a post casts a stigma and reversion on that ground amounts to reduction in rank attracting the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. However, they made the following observation as well:- "The word unsuitable is a very wide word which takes in cases other than case of inefficiency, undesirability, unsatisfactory conduct etc. That being so, it cannot be held that if a Government servant holding the post of Deputy Collector, who had no right to the post as found unsuitable for job and reverted to the substantive post of Tehsildar on that ground any stigma is cast upon him." 17. In the case before me, the petitioner has been reverted not on the ground that he was unfit to hold the post but on the ground that he was not suitable to hold it. Syed Abbas Hussain Nagri's (2) therefore does not help the petitioner. 18. Learned counsel then relied upon the case of N.B. Chakraborty v. The Union of India, AIR 1970 Assam and Nagaland 98. In that case a temporary employee whose service were terminated under Rule 5(i) was described as 'at present under suspension'. It was held that the use of expression 'at present under suspension' cast stigma on the petitioner as reading of the order could leave an impression in the mind of the future employers that the services of the employee had been terminated because of some serious allegation and such termination without complying with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was illegal. in my opinion facts in both the cases cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable in the case before me, there is neither an aspertion that the petitioner is unfit to hold the post nor is there an aspertion that his service has been terminated because of some misconduct. 19. In the case of Union of India v. Gajinder Singh etc., AIR 1972 SC 1329 it has been held that where a Kanungo was promoted to officiate as Naib Tehsildar under a standing order and was reverted to his substantive post for not passing the departmental examination, his reversion would not be vitiated on the ground that his co-promotees who were junior to him were allowed to continue to officiate as Naib Tahsildar Article 311 (2) was not attracted as the order was not attended with penal consequences. This case in my opinion supports the view which I have taken that the order reverting the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to pass the departmental examination does not amount to reduction in rank. Accordingly, I reject the submission that the impugned order is bad in as much as it has been passed without complying with the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution. 20. So far as the question of over payment of Rs. 4829.16P and its recovery in instalments from petitioner's salary is concerned, there is a dispute between the parties whether this amount has been properly found due from the petitioner. In this connection the petitioner has not been able to make out any case of violation of any statutory rule. If the respondents do not pay the salary which is due to the petitioner it is always open to him to recover the same by filing a suit. I am accordingly not inclined to go into the merits of the controversy raised in respect of the amount of Rs. 4829.16P which the respondents seek to adjust in petitioner's salary. 21. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.