JUDGMENT Jagmohan Lal, J. - This special appeal has been filed by a petitioner whose writ petition had been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The appellant was holding the post of Reference Clerk in a substantive capacity in the office of Inspector General of Prisons, U. P., Lucknow. Thereafter he was promoted in an officiating capacity as a Routine Grade Noter and Drafter and later on he was given an officiating chance to work as Head Clerk in the office of the Principal, jail Training School, Lucknow. While he was officiating on that post he was dismissed from service under an order dated 21-7-1959 by the Inspector General. He filed an appeal against that order. The appellate authority set aside the punishment of dismissal and in its place awarded him the punishment of stopping his increment for two years. The appellant was then reinstated as an officiating Noter and Drafter. 2. In the meantime, some other Reference Clerks who are respondents No. 3 to 9 in this appeal and who were junior to him were confirmed as Noters and Drafters. After the appellant was reinstated his work was also assessed for confirmation as Noter and Drafter but he was not confirmed on that post till 25-11-1967 when he was reverted under an order of that date (vide Annexure 8) to his substantive post of Reference Clerk. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition alleging that respondents Nos. 3 to 9 who were junior to him and who had been confirmed as Noters and Drafters during the period he was out of employment under the dismissal order passed against him, should have been deconfirmed under Rule 198-A of the Subsidiary Rules contained in Financial Hand Book, Volume II, and thereafter he should have been confirmed first on this post and then he persons junior to him. His further grievance was that so far as the order of reversion is concerned, it was illegal as not having been passed after complying with the provisions of Article 311 though it was an order of punishment. Both these pleas of the appellant were rejected by the learned single Judge. 4. In this appeal the same two points there re-agitated. As regards the first point. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that Rule 198-A has no application to the facts of the present case. Both these pleas of the appellant were rejected by the learned single Judge. 4. In this appeal the same two points there re-agitated. As regards the first point. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that Rule 198-A has no application to the facts of the present case. That rule provides that posts vacated by Government servants who are dismissed or removed from service may be filled substantively subject to the condition that the arrangement thus made will be reversed if the Government servant is reinstated on appeal. In the present case, there were several posts of Noters and Drafters on which substantive appointments had to be made which in the parlance of Government service is known as confirmation. The rule of promotion to this post, as contend-ed by the learned counsel for the appellant, was seniority subject to rejection of unfit. The respondents Nos. 3 to 9 who were junior to the appellant on their substantive posts of Reference Clerks were found fit for promotion and confirmed as Noters and Drafters. Evidently at that time the appellant who had already been dismissed from service could not be considered and was not considered for that confirmation. But according to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, a vacancy was left unfilled. After his appeal succeeded and he was reinstated his suitability for confirmation to this post was also judged but he was not found fit for confirmation. Had he been found fit then only the question of adjusting his seniority vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 3 to 9 would have arisen by the application of Rule 192-A. But in view of his unfitness no question of application of that rule arises. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant also did not seriously press this point and he laid emphasis only on the second point. 6. He contended that the reversion order in this case is ex facie an order of punishment and it is liable to be struck down for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Article 311. This order reads as follows : ''Order No. 26. Dated Lucknow, November 25, 1967. The then Karagar Maha Nirikshak perused the records of Sri Laxman Swaroop Sharma upto 1965-66 with regard to his confirmation as Noter and Drafter and observed that his Character Roll has persistently been unsatisfactory. This order reads as follows : ''Order No. 26. Dated Lucknow, November 25, 1967. The then Karagar Maha Nirikshak perused the records of Sri Laxman Swaroop Sharma upto 1965-66 with regard to his confirmation as Noter and Drafter and observed that his Character Roll has persistently been unsatisfactory. He, therefore, ordered that he cannot be confirmed on the post of Noter and Drafter on the basis of his record and gave him six months time to improve his work with explicit warning that if he failed to improve his work, the question of his further retention in service will be considered. On expiry of the aforesaid period, his case was examined by the undersigned very carefully along with the Dy. Inspector General (S) through whom his work passes. According to his report Sri Sharma has shown no improvement whatsoever. The then Karagar Maha Nirikshak had considered him unfit for reenion in service if he did not improve in six months' time and I regret to observe that even after working for so many years as offg. Noter and Drafter and previous warnings including the one referred to above, he has not shown any improvement. I have, therefore, no choice but to revert him to his substantive post as there is no hope that he will be fit for the post of Noter and Drafter. The question of his removal from service does not yet arise as he is a confirmed Reference Clerk. He is, therefore, reverted to his substantive post of Reference Clerk with effect from the date of this order. Sd. H. C. Saksena. 25-11-1967. Karagar Maha Nirikshak, U.P." From the above order it is evident that it was not a simple or innocuous order reverting an officiating Government servant from a higher post to his substantive post. On the other hand, this order clearly states that the appellant was found totally in-efficient for this post and for that reason he was being revered. The order casts a stigma of inefficiency on the appellant. It further discloses that at a previous sage he was threatened to be removed from service on account of his utter incompetency and inefficiency but subsequently only the punishment of reduction in rank was imposed on him through this summary order without complying with the requirements of Article 311. The order casts a stigma of inefficiency on the appellant. It further discloses that at a previous sage he was threatened to be removed from service on account of his utter incompetency and inefficiency but subsequently only the punishment of reduction in rank was imposed on him through this summary order without complying with the requirements of Article 311. The order is therefore illegal in views of the settled law on the subject as enunciated by the Supreme Court in numerous cases. The latest decision on the point is State of U. P. v. Sughar Singh, (1974) 1 Supreme Court Cases 218 in which the following observation was made at page 226 of the report "........The order itself may expressly state that the officer concerned is being reverted by way of punishment. In fact the order may in various other ways cast a stigma on the officer concerned. In all such cases, the order is to be taken as a punishment." To the same affect is on earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 449 in which the services of a temporary Government servant were terminated with an allegation that he was an undesirable person. That order was held by the Supreme Court to be by way of punishment and it was struck down. Castigating a Government servant as undesirable to be retained in Government service casts as much stigma on him as condemning him by calling him inefficient and incorrigible of improvement. Thus this order amounts to a punishment of reduction in rank. 7. We accordingly allow this appeal to this extent that the order of reversion of the appellant dated 25-11-1967 vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition is quashed. The petitioner shall get his costs from the respondent no. 1.