JUDGMENT Om Prakash Trivedi, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Devi Prasad Upadhyaya. Shortly stated the petitioner's case is this : 2. He was appointed a temporary Panchayat Clerk under the District Panchayat Office, Etah on 26-8-1949 in the grade of Rs. 60 - 120, which was later revised to Rs. 100 - 180. On 1st April, 1954 the petitioner was confirmed on the said post. On 15-7-1961 the petitioner was working as Panchayat Clerk under the Panchayat Raj Department and was posted at Etah in the District Planning Office. He addressed a representation of date (Annexure I of the Writ Petition) to the Director, Panchayat Raj, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow for his transfer to the Office of the Director at Lucknow evidently because it offered him better avenues of promotion. This representation was accepted by the Director, Panchayat Raj (hereinafter for the sake of brevity to be referred to as the Director) and by an order of 9-8-61 the petitioner was appointed by the Director a Routine Grade Clerk in the office of the Director at Lucknow (Annexure 3 of the writ petition) This order was, however, cancelled by a subsequent order of which Annexure 2 of the writ petition is a copy, and the petitioner was appointed an Accountant in she office of the Director at Lucknow on 23-8-1961 in the scale of Rs. 80 - 140, which was later revised to Rs. 120 - 220 It is an admitted fact that at the time when the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner was passed he was working as an-Accountant. It is further admitted that the post of the Accountant is in the grade of lower Division Assistant. By an order dated 21-91968 the petitioner was transferred by the Director, opposite party No. 1 (Annexure 13 of the petition). The order rendered into English reads as follows : - "Devi Prasad Upadhayaya temporarily working as Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Director, Panchayat Raj, is transferred back to the District Planning Office, Etah for administrative reasons with effect from the date of issue of the order. He should be relieved by the Head Assistant. Sri Upadhayaya shall report his presence to the District Planning Officer, Etah. Sd. He should be relieved by the Head Assistant. Sri Upadhayaya shall report his presence to the District Planning Officer, Etah. Sd. Ayodhya Prasad Dikshit, Director, Panchayat Raj, U. P., Lucknow." The petitioner appealed against the order of transfer to the State of Uttar Pradesh, opposite patty No. 2, (vide copy Annexures 15 and 15A of the writ petition). The appeal was dismissed on 6-6-1970 (vide Annexure 20 of the writ petition). The petitioner contends that he was holding a substantive post in a substantive capacity in the Directorate of Panchayat Raj and, therefore, could not be transferred from there to the district. It is further submitted that the order of transfer amounts to his reversion or reduction in rank because there is no post in the office of the District Planning Officer, Etah carrying the same pay scale as admissible to a Lower Division Assistant in the Directorate with the result that if he takes charge as Panchayat clerk, the maximum salary of which is Rs. 180/-as against Rs. 204/-which the petitioner was drawing at the time of the impugned transfer he would suffer a financial loss of Rs. 24/- per month. It is further contended that his future chances of promotion in the district office will be permanently blocked because there are no posts in the district office higher in grade to the grade of a Panchayat Clerk. The order of transfer is challenged, therefore, on the ground that it was in violation of the protection given under Article 311 of the Constitution of India became it amounted to reduction in rank and punishment and no opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner to defend himself against the punishment. The order is also challenged on the ground that it was passed by opposite party No. I in mala fide exercise of jurisdiction. The allegations in this connection are that discrimination was practised between the petitioner and opposite parties 3 to 5 as these opposite parties were junior to the petitioner and had also come to the Directorate from the District Panchayat Office. They were unfairly placed above the petitioner and confirmed as Lower Division Assistant by an order dated 23-4-1970 contained in the original of Annexure 21 in supersession of the petitioner's claims although he was senior to them. They were unfairly placed above the petitioner and confirmed as Lower Division Assistant by an order dated 23-4-1970 contained in the original of Annexure 21 in supersession of the petitioner's claims although he was senior to them. The petitioner assails validity of Annexure 21 as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India 3. On these facts and grounds it is prayed that the order of transfer (Annexure 13) and the order of rejection of his appeal (Annexure 20) may be quashed by certiorari. There is a prayer for mandamus commanding opposite parties 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to continue to work on the post of Lower Division Assistant in the Directorate of Panchayat Raj. Finally, there is a prayer for the issue of certiorari quashing the order of confirmation of opposite parties 3 to 5 contained in the original of Annexure 21 and for mandamus directing the opposite parties to prepare a fresh gradation list determining the inter se merit of the petitioner and the opposite parties. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite patties 1 and 2 sworn by Satya Prakash, Head Assistant in the office of the Director. A supplementary counter affidavit sworn by the same deponent has also been filed The petitioner has filed rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder affidavits to these affidavits. Opposite parties 3 to 5 have not filed any counter affidavit nor have they appeared to contest the petition. It wat contested solely by opposite parties 1 and 2. The stand taken by the contesting opposite parties in their counter affidavits is that the petitioner held a substantive post of Panchayat Clerk in the office of the District Planning Officer, Etah He was transferred to the Directorate of Panchayat Raj on his own request, held the temporary post of Lower Division Assistant and was transferred for administrative reasons to his original post in the office of the District Planning Officer and this was not a punishment. It is conceded in the counter affidavits that the petitioner as a consequence of the transfer order will take charge as Panchayat Clerk in the scale of Rs. 100-180 in the absence of post carrying to scale of Rs. It is conceded in the counter affidavits that the petitioner as a consequence of the transfer order will take charge as Panchayat Clerk in the scale of Rs. 100-180 in the absence of post carrying to scale of Rs. 120 - 220 on which he was temporarily working in the Directorate but this reduction in the scale according to the opposite parties is not by way of punishment but was the natural consequence of his transfer to this post. The opposite parties maintain that the petitioner has no right to hold the post of Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Director, Panchayat Raj at Lucknow as he was working there temporarily and he could be transferred by the Director to his original post in the office of the District Planning Office, Etah on which post he held in lien also. In the supplementary counter affidavit there is an additional plea that the work and conduct of the petitioner was unsatisfactory and instead of taking disciplinary action against him containing charges the Director preferred to transfer him to his original post in the District. 5. I have heard Sri D.S. Bajpai appearing for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing Counsel Sri K. S. Verma. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was originally appointed temporary Panchayat Clerk in the District of Etah which post he held in the office of the District Panchayat Officer, Etah in the year 1949. This is averred in para 1 of the writ petition and admitted without reservation in para 2 of the counter affidavit. In para 3 of the counter affidavit it is further admitted that the petitioner was confirmed as a Panchayat Clerk in the office of the District Panchayat Officer, Etah with effect from 1-4-1954 It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was an employee of the Panchayat Raj Department and not an employee of the Planning Department. It is clear from the Manual of Government Orders that the Panchayat Raj and the Planning Departments are two separate and distinct Departments. It cannot be disputed that the Director of Panchayat Raj is the head of the Panchayat Raj department. It is clear from the Manual of Government Orders that the Panchayat Raj and the Planning Departments are two separate and distinct Departments. It cannot be disputed that the Director of Panchayat Raj is the head of the Panchayat Raj department. There was a faint suggestion in arguments of learned Chief standing Counsel although there is no such clear averment in the counter affidavits that the petitioner was an employee of the Planning Department There is no support at all for this contention The opposite parties, for this contention appear to rely, in the main, on the fact that the petitioner was at the time when he made a request to the Director for his transfer to the Directorate working in the office of the District Planning Officer. Para 960 of the Manual of Government Orders shows that the District Planning Officer alto holds the post of the District Panchayat Officer in a district. Para 934 of the same Manual shows that the District Magistrate is ultimately responsible for all Panchayat Raj work in the district and in the discharge of this responsibility he acts through the District Panchayat Officer. The District Planning Officer, therefore, acts in a dual capacity Vis-a-vis the employees Panchayat Raj Department he acts as the District Panchayat Officer and notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was, at the time when he moved for his transfer to the Directorate, he was working in the District Planning Office at Etah under the subordination of the District Panchayat Officer and not the District Planning Officer in accordance with Para 934 read with Para 960 of the Manual of Government Orders Para 934(2) of the same Manual further shows that it is the District Magistrate who is the appointing authority in respect of ministerial and inferior staff under the Panchayat Office There is reason to hold that the petitioner was initially appointed as Panchayat Clerk by the District Magistrate, who was the competent authority and not by the District Planning Officer as was vaguely convassed for the opposite parties. It is conclusively shown by Annexure A-2 that the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Panchayat Clerk by order of the District Magistrate. It is conclusively shown by Annexure A-2 that the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Panchayat Clerk by order of the District Magistrate. The original order of his appointment to that post, however, has not been produced in this case but it may be fairly presumed in view of the above that the appointment order must also have been made by the District Magistrate and not by the District Planning Officer. In view of the clearly admitted fact that the petitioner was in 1949 initially appointed to the post of Panchayat Clerk there is no room at all left for the argument that the petitioner originally belonged to the Planning Department The fact that he was originally appointed as Panchayat Clerk is itself sufficient to show that he was originally appointed in the Panchayat Raj Department and, therefore belonged to that department and not to the Planning Department. He was no doubt subsequently posted in the office of the Director, Panchayat Raj as Lower Division Assistant on his own request but it is quite clear that he did not go to the Directorate office on deputation for the simple reason that he belonged to the Panchayat Raj Department itself and not to any foreign department. The question arises whether in the circumstances the petitioner could be transferred from the post of Lower Division Assistant which he held in the office of the Directorate to a post in the district. The question arises whether in the circumstances the petitioner could be transferred from the post of Lower Division Assistant which he held in the office of the Directorate to a post in the district. The petitioner contends in the writ petition that he was holding a substantive post in the office of the Director This contention is disputed and does not' appear to be correct The petitioner was unable to produce any order confirming him to the post of Lower Division Assistant Indeed the sole basis for his challenge to the order of confirmation of opposite parties 3 to 5 appears to be the fact that he himself was ignored for the purpose of confirmation to the post of Lower Division Assistant The role basis for claiming that he was holding a substantive post in the Directorate appears to be a Gradation List, of which Annexure II of the petition is a copy, and in which the petition has been shown ss a permanent employee working in the Directorate Column 2 of this document gives the date of confirmation of Devi Prasad Upadhyaya as 1-4-1954 which evidently refers to his confirmation in the post of Panchayat Clerk. It is, therefore, clear that in the Gradation List he has been shown as a permanent clerk on the basis of his being a permanent Panchayat Clerk. It has not been established that he was a confirmed Lower Division Assistant. It follows, therefore, that he was only a temporary Lower Division Assistant working in the Directorate of Panchayat Raj. The petitioner being a temporary employee in the Directorate could be transferred from the Directorate by the Director to the district But transfer of an employee always means and implies transfer to the same post which he is holding or to an equivalent post in the sense of a post in the same grade or carrying the same pay scale Normally an order of transfer is not justiciable when an employee is transferred by the competent authority from one post to another in the same grade or pay scale because transfer is purely administrative matter. But in the present case the impugned order of transfer contained in Annexure 13 does not even indicate to which post the petitioner was being transferred in the office of the D/strict Planning Officer. Etah. But in the present case the impugned order of transfer contained in Annexure 13 does not even indicate to which post the petitioner was being transferred in the office of the D/strict Planning Officer. Etah. The counter affidavits of the opposite parties, however, clarify that he was intended to be transferred to the post of Panchayat Clerk in the office of the District Planning Officer, Etah. For it it [admitted that there is no post in the office of the District Planning ;Officer, Etah equivalent to the post of Lower Division Assistant or Carrying the same pay scale. The post of Panchayat Clerk is admittedly in a lower grade than the post of Lower Division Assistant. It it, therefore, clear that by Annexure 13 the petitioner was transferred to a lower post in the district which was not possible unless he had been reverted from the post of Lower Division Assistant which he was holding at the time. However, he was never reverted from the port of Lower Division Assistant. He had, therefore, the legal right until reversion to hold the post of Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Director As I have already said earlier, if the petitioner was on deputation to the Directorate then he could always be sent back to his parent department on the post substantively held by him at the time when he came on deputation. But the parent department of tin petitioner was Panchayat Raj Department and not any other foreign department. That being so, he did not go on deputation to the office of the Director, Panchayat Raj, as he was from the very beginning an employee of that very department. There was, therefore, no question of his being sent back by transfer to the original post in which he was working at the time when he was promoted to the post of Low Division Assistant in the Directorate. There was, therefore, no question of his being sent back by transfer to the original post in which he was working at the time when he was promoted to the post of Low Division Assistant in the Directorate. Such an order of transfer to lower post was clearly invalid and was not enforceable in law Transfer of the petitioner to a lower post amounted clearly to his reversion to a lower post without any order of reversion being passed Treated as an order of reversion, which in fact it is not, the impugned order Contained in Annexure 13 amounts in law to petitioner's reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution because it entails penal consequences in as much as the petitioner will be permanently deprived of future promotions Admittedly, there are no higher posts under the District Planning Officer, Etah and consequently no avenues of promotion. To the petitioner was reverted from the post of Lower Division Assistant and sent to such a post that will clearly amount to punishment. If his work and conduct were such as made him liable for reversion to the post of Panchayat Clerk from the office of the Directorate then he should have been given an opportunity to show cause and to defend himself against his reversion and posting as Panchayat Clerk. Not only was there no such opportunity afforded to the petitioner to defend himself but there was not even an order of reversion and the impugned order (Annexure 13) does not say that he was being sent back to the district for unsatisfactory work or conduct, on the other hand, the only reason for petitioner's transfer given is 'administrative exigency'. On all these considerations it is the inescapable conclusion that the petitioners order of transfer was bad in law being in breach of the protection guaranteed by Article 311 of the Constitution. I hold for the above reasons that the transfer order must be quashed. 6. For the reasons given above the representation or appeal of the petitioner against the order of transfer was entitled to acceptance and was wrongly rejected by Government. Consequently Annexure 20 is also liable to be quashed. 7. I hold for the above reasons that the transfer order must be quashed. 6. For the reasons given above the representation or appeal of the petitioner against the order of transfer was entitled to acceptance and was wrongly rejected by Government. Consequently Annexure 20 is also liable to be quashed. 7. As the petitioner's order of transfer was invalid in law his claims for confirmation to the post of Lower Division Assistant could not be passed ever and opposite parties 3 to 5 who were admittedly junior to the petitioner, could not be confirmed in that post until the petitioner's claim to confirmation received due consideration. To do otherwise would be discriminatory and in disregard of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as admittedly opposite parties 3 to 5 were junior to the petitioner. The order of confirmation of opposite parties 3 to 5 contained in Annexure 21 is also consequently liable to be set aside. 8. The petitioner is entitled to hold the post of Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Director, Panchayat Raj and to the determination of hit inter se seniority between himself and opposite parties 3 to 5 on consideration of his claims to confirmation on the said post. 9. For the foregoing reasons the petition is allowed. The petitioner's order of transfer contained in the original of Annexure 13 is hereby quashed as also the order of rejection of his representation against the lame contained in the original of Annexure 20. 10. The order of confirmation of opposite parties 3 to 5 contained. Is the original of Annexure 21 to the petition is also quashed. Let certiorari Issue accordingly. The opposite parties are commanded to treat the petitioner as still a Lower Division Assistant and permit him to hold that port and continue to work in the office of the Directorate of Panchayat Raj at Lucknow. The opposite parties are further directed to re-determine the inter se seniority of the petitioner and opposite parties 3 to 5 after determining the petitioner's claim to hold the post of Lower Division Assistant and let mandamus issue accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.