JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner, Ravindranath Tiwari, was appointed to the post of Lower Division Teacher in a Government School on 2nd September 1960. By order dated 25th January 1967, passed by the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Jabalpur Division the petitioner was promoted to the post of upper Division Teacher and was posted in the Middle School, Tendukheda district Damon. The petitioner was later made quasi-permanent by order dated 11th April 1972 on that post. However, by order dated 3rd July 1974 passed by the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Jabalpur Division, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Lower Division Teacher. The petitioner then filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of his reversion. ( 2. ) THE respondents submit that the petitioners promotion to the post of upper Division Teacher and the subsequent declaration that the petitioner was quasi-permanent on that post were invalid and void because the petitioner was promoted on the basis of a wrong seniority list which was prepared on a wrong interpretation of a statutory rule. It is further submitted that on the basis of his correct placement in the seniority list, the petitioner had no chance of being promoted and, therefore, he and many others like him were reverted. It is contended that the reversion of the petitioner does not amount to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. The respondents also point out that to mitigate the hardship, the Government has decided not to reduce the pay of the persons who were so reverted and the petitioner will be receiving the same salary which he was getting as Upper Division Teacher even after his reversion. ( 3. ) THE primary and middle schools in the State except in the Mahakoshal region were run by the State Government In the Mahakoshal region these schools were run by the local authorities. To bring about uniformity the government decided to assume the responsibility of providing teachers even in the schools run by the local authorities from 1st October 1963. The Madhya pradesh Local Authorities Schools Teachers (Absorption in Government Service) Act, 1963, was passed to enable the Government to implement this decision. To bring about uniformity the government decided to assume the responsibility of providing teachers even in the schools run by the local authorities from 1st October 1963. The Madhya pradesh Local Authorities Schools Teachers (Absorption in Government Service) Act, 1963, was passed to enable the Government to implement this decision. Sections 5 to 8 of this Act provided for constitution of a screening committee for screening of teachers in the employment of the local authorities and for their absorption in Government service. Section 10 (2) of the Act enacted that "the conditions of service including the salary, scale of pay, leave rules etc. applicable to the absorbed employees shall be such as may be prescribed by the state Government. " Section 11 of the Act empowered the Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11, the Government made the Madhya Pradesh Local authorities School Teachers (Absorption in Government Service) Rules, 1964. Rule 12 of the said rules is as follows : "12. Determination of seniority- (1) The seniority of an absorbed employee in the post or cadre of absorption shall as on 1st October 1963, be determined by the lengths of continuous service, whether officiating or permanent, rendered by him immediately before that date in the corresponding post or posts in the local authority excluding periods of fortuitous appointments which are in the nature of stopgap arrangements. (2) Where the length of service in the corresponding post in the local authorities is equal, the employee senior in age shall be deemed to be senior. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule seniority inter se of employees who before the 1st October 1963 belonged to the small local authority as it existed before that date shall not be disturbed. " ( 4. ) THE State Government initially proceeded on the basis that Rule 12 of the Absorption Rules was applicable only for determining inter-se seniority of the absorbed teachers. The relative seniority of the absorbed teachers and teachers directly recruited in Government service was determined on the footing that the absorbed teachers were appointed on their posts of absorption on 1st october 1963 which was the date of absorption. All absorbed teachers thus became juniors in the cadre of absorption to the teachers directly appointed in government service in that cadre before 1st October 1963. All absorbed teachers thus became juniors in the cadre of absorption to the teachers directly appointed in government service in that cadre before 1st October 1963. Consequently, in the promotions made from the cadre of Lower Division Teachers to the cadre of Upper Division Teachers the teachers promoted were by and large those who were directly recruited before 1st October 1963. The petitioner was also promoted as Upper Division Teacher in 1967 on the footing that he being directly recruited as Lower Division Teacher in 1960 was senior to all absorbed teachers. ( 5. ) ONE of the absorbed teachers challenged some of the promotions in ramji Prasad Tiwari v. The State of M. P. and others, (Misc. Petition No. 60 of 1971, decided on the 7/12th December 1973. ). The High Court did not accept the narrow interpretation put by the State. Government on Rule 12 of the absorption Rules that it had no application for determination of relative seniority of the absorbed teachers and directly recruited teachers. It was held that the relative seniority of an absorbed teacher has to be fixed on the basis of his date of officiation while in service of a local authority on a post corresponding to his post of absorption. A writ of mandamus was issued directing the government to determine the seniority of the teacher concerned with reference to his date of original appointment in the service of the local authority and to consider the question of his promotion on that basis. It was declared that the teacher concerned would be entitled to be considered for promotion earlier to those who were appointed later, and that after being promoted he would be entitled to seniority in the higher cadre of Upper Division Teachers on the basis of his seniority in the cadre of Lower Division Teachers. The impact of this decision was that many absorbed teachers became senior to those who were already in Government service on 1st October 1963 when the absorption took place. This necessitated the revision of seniority lists. The Government, therefore, prepared revised seniority lists and the Lower Division Teachers who could not have been considered for promotion but who in the meantime were promoted were reverted. The petitioner is one of such teachers. The reversion became necessary because the posts in the cadre of Upper Division Teachers are limited. ( 6. The Government, therefore, prepared revised seniority lists and the Lower Division Teachers who could not have been considered for promotion but who in the meantime were promoted were reverted. The petitioner is one of such teachers. The reversion became necessary because the posts in the cadre of Upper Division Teachers are limited. ( 6. ) THE petitioner was not a party impleaded in Misc. Petition No. 60 of 1971. The judgment in that case is, however, binding as a precedent. The petitioner has also not challenged the correctness of the interpretation put on rule 12 of the Absorption Rules in that case. We have, therefore, to proceed on the assumption that Rule 12 was correctly interpreted in that case and the state Governments interpretation of the rule was wrong. When the mistaken interpretation of Rule 12 on the basis of which the Government acted and made promotions was exposed in that case it became the duty of the Government to revise the seniority lists and to give effect to the correct seniority by reverting persons wrongly promoted and by promoting those who ought to have been promoted. Although the decision in that case does not expressly direct the government to revert the persons who were already promoted, that follows by necessary implication when the posts of promotion are limited. ( 7. ) WHILE absorbing in Government service the teachers employed in the schools of local authorities, it was open to the Government by framing necessary rules to keep the absorbed teachers in a separate cadre as was done in state of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, ( AIR 1963 SC 913 = (1963) 2 SCR 169. ). Rule 12 of the Absorption Rules as interpreted in the earlier case has, however, led to integration of the absorbed teachers and the teachers who were already in Government service on 1st October 1963. The promotions from the cadre of Lower Division Teachers to the cadre of Upper Division Teachers have to be made on the basis of unified seniority list showing relative seniority of absorbed teachers and directly recruited teachers. The reversion of the petitioner is a consequence of giving effect to relative seniority in accordance with Rule 12 of the Absorption Rules. ( 8. ) THE seniority list of Lower Division Teachers is prepared at district level because the District Education Officer is the appointing authority of Lower division Teachers. The reversion of the petitioner is a consequence of giving effect to relative seniority in accordance with Rule 12 of the Absorption Rules. ( 8. ) THE seniority list of Lower Division Teachers is prepared at district level because the District Education Officer is the appointing authority of Lower division Teachers. For the purpose of promotion from Lower Division teacher to Upper Division Teacher a combined seniority list of lower Division Teachers working in all the Districts of the division and who are eligible and qualified for promotion is prepared by the Divisional Superintendent of Education who is the appointing authority of Upper Division Teachers. No State wise list of seniority of Lower Division teachers is prepared and promotions to the posts of Upper Division Teachers in a division is made from the Lower Division Teachers working in that division. The cadre of Upper Division Teachers is thus a divisional cadre and not a State cadre. On the basis of the seniority list prepared in accordance with rule 12 of the Absorption Rules, the petitioners serial number in the seniority list is 114, whereas previously it was No. 11. It is for this reason that the petitioner has been reverted, because in accordance with his correct placement in the seniority list he had no chance of being promoted as Upper Division teacher. ( 9. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that there could be no division-wise seniority list of Lower Division Teachers and that the State government should have prepared a State wise seniority list of Lower Division teachers to see if the petitioner was rightly or wrongly promoted. Reference in this connection is made to Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rule, 1961. Rule 12 provides that the seniority of the members of a service or a district branch or group of posts of that service shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in that rule. The rule does not say that there must in every case be a State wise seniority list. The rule permits a seniority list of a distinct group of posts of a service. A division-wise seniority list of Lower Division Teachers is a seniority list pertaining to a distinct group of posts of a service. The rule does not say that there must in every case be a State wise seniority list. The rule permits a seniority list of a distinct group of posts of a service. A division-wise seniority list of Lower Division Teachers is a seniority list pertaining to a distinct group of posts of a service. We have already said that the cadre of Upper Division Teachers to which promotions are made from the cadre of Lower Division Teachers is a divisional cadre. Therefore, such a seniority list cannot be said to be contrary to Rule 12. Having regard to the administrative efficiency, it is open to the Government to have regional or divisional cadres: [see Ram Sharan v. D. I. G. of Police, Ajmer, (A I R 1964 SC 1559.)]. The petitioner has not argued that the divisional cadre of Upper Division Teachers and restriction on promotions to the posts of Upper Division Teacher, in one division from the seniority list of Lower Division Teachers in that division offends Article 16 of the Constitution. All that has been argued is that such a list is contrary to Rule 12. As earlier observed, this argument is not sustainable on a proper construction of the rule. A division wise seniority list of Lower division Teachers cannot, therefore, be held to be invalid. ( 10. ) IT will thus be seen that the petitioners promotion to the post of upper Division Teacher and the subsequent declaration that he was quasi permanent on that post were all done under a mistake as to his correct position in the seniority list. The petitioners promotion on the basis of a wrong seniority list violated the rights of those teachers guaranteed to them under Article 16 of the Constitution who ought to have been considered for promotion before the petitioner on the basis of their true seniority. The petitioners promotion was, therefore, invalid: [see Roshanlal v. Union of India, (A I R 1967 SC 1889.) and state of Mysore v. Krishna Murthy, (A I R 1973 SC 1146.)]. When the petitioner could not be promoted as Upper Division Teacher and when his promotion was invalid because it was made on the basis of a wrong seniority list, the declaration that he held a quasi permanent status on the said post was also invalid. When the petitioner could not be promoted as Upper Division Teacher and when his promotion was invalid because it was made on the basis of a wrong seniority list, the declaration that he held a quasi permanent status on the said post was also invalid. Such a promotion and declaration of quasi permanent status could not confer on the petitioner any right to hold the post of Upper Division Teacher. In these circumstances, the reversion of the petitioner cannot amount to reduction in rank under Article 311 of the Constitution. It is immaterial that the persons affected by the wrong promotion of the petitioner did not go to the Court. Once a wrong is discovered the Government is bound to do justice even to those who ungrudgingly suffer injustice. ( 11. ) IN K. K. Shrinivasan v. Union of India, ( AIR 1958 SC 419 .) it was held that a person who was declared quasi permanent under a mistake without consulting the Public service Commission which was a mandatory requirement could not claim that status. In State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh, ( AIR 1964 SC 521 .) certain persons were confirmed as permanent Tahsildars by the Financial Commissioner under a mistake when he had no authority to do so. It was held that such an order of confirmation did not confer any legal right on those persons as Tahsildars and a subsequent order de-confirming them did not amount to reduction in rank. Somewhat similar position has arisen in the instant case. The petitioner was promoted under a mistake on the basis of a wrong seniority list. The promotion was invalid and so was the declaration of quasi permanent status. The petitioner did not get any right to the post of Upper Division Teacher because of the invalid promotion. The petitioners reversion is not by way of punishment and does not amount to reduction in rank. ( 12. ) IT is also contended that the petitioners reversion was made by the divisional Superintendent of Education, Jabalpur Division, and not by the divisional Superintendent of Education, Sagar Division, where he was posted as upper Division Teacher and, therefore, the order of reversion is invalid. There is no substance in this contention. ( 12. ) IT is also contended that the petitioners reversion was made by the divisional Superintendent of Education, Jabalpur Division, and not by the divisional Superintendent of Education, Sagar Division, where he was posted as upper Division Teacher and, therefore, the order of reversion is invalid. There is no substance in this contention. It has been pointed out in the return that sagar Division was created on lst April l973 by amalgamating Sagar and damoh Districts of Jabalpur Division and Chhatarpur, Tikamgarh and Panna districts of Rewa Division. The administrative change and transfer of functions of Divisional Superintendents of Education, Jabalpur and Rewa to divisional Superintendent of Education, Sagar took some time. In the intervening period powers were retained by the Divisional Superintendent of Education,, jabalpur in respect of Sagar and Damoh Districts and Divisional Superintendent of Education, Rewa in respect of Chhatarpur, Tikamgarh and Panna Districts. The petitioner was employed in Damoh District. His reversion order was, therefore, passed by the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Jabalpur. In view of these facts stated in the return, there can be no doubt that the divisional Superintendent of Education, Jabalpur, had authority to pass the order reverting the petitioner. ( 13. ) THE petition fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.