( 1 ) AS on 18-7-1969 the petitioner was a confirmed Foreman 'b' in the pay scaleof Rs. 370-575 in South Central Railways. In pursuance of an award of the Railway Labour Tribunal, presided over by Shri N. M. Miabhoy, Retired Chief Justice, High Court of Gujara'h, (hereinafter referred to as 'miabhoy award'), the Central Government infer alia sanctioned the upgradation' of the pogts of Foremen 'b' in the pay scale of Rs. 370-575 in the Mechanical Electrical, Signal and Tele Communication Work-shops of the Railways to the scale of Rs. 450-575 and designated them as 'assistant Shop Superintendents'. The relevant pant of the decision of the Government communicated by the Railway Board reads thus :- (Exhibit 'c' ). "sub Grant of Special pay to Foreman 'a' and upgradation of posts of Foreman 'b' to Foreman 'a' in Workshops- the Railway Labour Tribunal, 1969, which was appointed by government under the permanent Negotiating Machinery for dealing with the demands in regard to which agreement could not be arrived at between the Railway Board and Organised Labour has inter-alia recorded, the following decisions in respect of the issue relating to workshop Staff : - (i) The demand of the Federation in regard to grant of a special pay of Rs. 150. 00 per month to Foreman 'a' is granted. (ii) As regards the demand of the Federation to grant a special pay of Rs. 160- per month to Foreman 'b it is decided that instead of such special pay, Foreman 'b' should be given the higher grade of Rs. 450/-575. (iii) Decisions given in regard to grant of special pay of Rs. 150/- per month to Foreman 'a' and upgradation of Foreman 'b' to rs. 4501-575 scale in Mechanical Workshops should also be made applicable to Foreman working in Electrical and Signal and Telecommunication workshops. ( 2 ) THE Government besides accepting the above decision, have agreed to the benefits being extended to the Civil Engineering workshops as well and accordingly it has been decided as under : - (i) The posts of Foreman 'a' in the Authorised Scale of Rs. 450/-575 in the Mechanical, Electrical, Signal and Telecommunica and Civil Engineering Workshops should be re-designated as "shop superintendent" and the incumbents of these posts be granted a special pay of Rs. 150 per month with effect from 1-8-1972. (ii) All the posts of Foreman 'b' in scale Rs. 450/-575 in the Mechanical, Electrical, Signal and Telecommunica and Civil Engineering Workshops should be re-designated as "shop superintendent" and the incumbents of these posts be granted a special pay of Rs. 150 per month with effect from 1-8-1972. (ii) All the posts of Foreman 'b' in scale Rs. 370/575 in the mechanical, Electrical, Signal and Telecommunication Workshops and of Foreman in scale Rs. 335|-485 in Civil Engineering Workshops, should be upgraded to the scale of Rs. 450|-575 and redesignated "as "assistant Shop Superintendent" with effect from 1-8-70. The pay of the incumbents of the upgraded posts should be fixed proforma from 1-8-70 under Rule 2017-B (F. P. 22-C) R. 11, and arrears shall be paid from 1-8-72 only. ( 3 ) THIS has the sanction of the President. According to the above order, the posts of Foreman 'b' in the pay seals of Es. 450-575 and the said upgraded posts were redesdgnated as 'assistant shop Superintendents' with effect from 1-8-1970 and those that were holding the posts were given the benefit of higher scale of pay notonally from 1-8-1970 and factually from 1-8-1972. In pursuance of the said order, the pay scale of the petitioner has been re-fixed by the Railway Administration in its office Order N0. 63/dl/73 dated 28-8-1973 (Exhibit 'd') it appears, the pay scale of Rs. 450-575 has been revised to Rs. 700-900. 2. By its order No. L|9 150|i|9 dated 20-9-1974 the Railway administration evidently in exigencies of service has transferred and posted the petitioner as EF/bg/ubl in Grade Rs. 370-475 which is stated to have been revised subsequently. It is necessary to set out the relevant part of the said order : - the following transfers and postings are ordered with immediate effect : 3. Shri M. Pooswamy, Adhoc ASS|ems|ubls in grade Rs. 700- 900 (RS) is transferred and posted as EFibg|ubl in grade Rs. 370- 475 (AS) vice Shri B. G. Gopinath Rao, EF /bg|ubl transferred to dee0 (M) BZA. Shri M. Pooswamy should take over from B. G. Gopinatha Rao to-day itself i. e. , 20-9-1974 AN. The petitioner has challenged this order principally on the ground that in the guise of transfer, there is a reduction in rank in violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. Shri M. Pooswamy should take over from B. G. Gopinatha Rao to-day itself i. e. , 20-9-1974 AN. The petitioner has challenged this order principally on the ground that in the guise of transfer, there is a reduction in rank in violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) IN their return, the respondents have stated that not all the tioner is an ad hoc Assistant Shop Superintendent in Grade Rs. 700-900 and that he is trasferred and posted to his substantive post of Electrical foreman in Grade Rs. 370-475. In the order, the Railway administration has used the term 'ad hoc to convey that the continuance of the petitioner as an Assistant Shop Superintendent was not on a regular basis and was only stop gap or purely temporary. 4. In their return, the respondents have stated that not all the posts of Foreman 'b' have been upgraded and that only certain posts have been upgraded and that the incumbents who were holding the upgraded posts have not been automatically promoted to the upgraded posts. It is averred that the petitioner was allowed 'to continue to work against the upgraded post until the said post was filled in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. Finally it is asserted that the petitioner has been reverted to his substantive post and there is no reduction in rank and therefore the action of the Railway administration was iustified. In answer to the assertions made by the respondents, the petitioner has not filed any reply or rejoinder denying the above averments or contesting the expression of the term 'adhoc" in the order, of transfer dated 20-9-1974 (Exhibit F ). In the circumstances I am of the, view that the factual statements made by the, respondents in their return as also in the order dated 20-9-1974 (Exhibit F) have to be accepted as correct and the case of the petitioner examined On that basis only. ( 5 ) AT the hearing of the writ petition Shri A. T. Vijayarangam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated before me that the petitioner was not urging the plea of mala fides alleged against some of 'the respondents in passing the impugned order and I may deal with his claim solely on the legal grounds urged before me. ( 5 ) AT the hearing of the writ petition Shri A. T. Vijayarangam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated before me that the petitioner was not urging the plea of mala fides alleged against some of 'the respondents in passing the impugned order and I may deal with his claim solely on the legal grounds urged before me. In view of the above concession made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have not referred to or dealt with the allegations of mala fides attributed by She petitioner against some of the respondents which have also been denied by them in their return. ( 6 ) SRIYUTHS A. S. Balasubramanyam and A. T. Vijayarangam who argued the case before me contended that with the upgradation of the posts, fixation of pay, drawal of arrears and increments in the upgraded post, the petitioner has acquired an indefeasible right to continue in the upgraded post and that in the guise of transfer there has been a reduction in rank and the same was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. Shri R. S. Mahendra, learned Counsel for the respondents, contested the tand of the petitioner and urged that the petitioner had not been regularly promoted to the post of Assistant Shop Superintendent and therefore he had not acquired an indefeasible right to continue in the said post and the action of the Railway Administration to revert the petitioner from the Adhoc or purely temporary post he was holding to his substantive post and the transfer thereto was legal. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties did not bring to my notice that the word 'upgradation' has been denned either in any of the Recruitment rules of the Railway or in the Fundamental Rules. In the absence of a statutory definition, I have to ascertain the meaning of the term from the context in which it occurs. The word 'upgradation' has not been denned either in Oxford Dictionary or the Webster's New International dictionary. But the word 'upgrade has been defined in the Webster's new International Dictionary (Vol. 2 -22nd Edn.) as 'an upward grade or slope, as of a road; hence, an ascent toward a better state'. The word 'upgradation' has not been denned either in Oxford Dictionary or the Webster's New International dictionary. But the word 'upgrade has been defined in the Webster's new International Dictionary (Vol. 2 -22nd Edn.) as 'an upward grade or slope, as of a road; hence, an ascent toward a better state'. ( 8 ) UPGRADATION of a post in any Govt Office or establishment presupposes that there is a particular lower grade post and that the same is sought to be converted into a higher grade post in the exigencies of public service. It does not appear from any of the rules or from the scheme of 'upgradation' of a post that a person holding the lower post which is upgraded or converted into a higher post automatically fits into the upgraded post and acquires an indefeasible right to continue in the upgraded post. As to how the upgraded post has to be filled is a matter that can be regulated by the Recruitment Rules and in its absence by executive orders. With the upgradation of the post, the person holding the lower post does not ipso facto become the holder of the upgraded post with a right to continue in the said post. In my view, to concede that with the upgradation of the post the incumbent in the lower post becomes entitled to continue in the upgraded post and that if he is sought 'to be disturbed it would amount to reduction in rank in the absence of express provisions to the contrary may bring about startling results. With the upgradafion of the post and the temporary fitment of the petitioner in the post, for various reasons, with which I am not concerned, the petitioner did not acquire an indefeasible right to continue in that post. ( 9 ) THE term 'ad hoc' does not appear to have been denned in the recruitment Rules and. therefore I have to ascertain its meaning from the context in which it occurs. The term 'ad hoc' is a Latin term and is defined as "pertaining 'to, or for the sake of a particular case alone" in the Webster's New International Dictionary (Vol. 1-2nd Edn. ). In Corpus juris, Vol. therefore I have to ascertain its meaning from the context in which it occurs. The term 'ad hoc' is a Latin term and is defined as "pertaining 'to, or for the sake of a particular case alone" in the Webster's New International Dictionary (Vol. 1-2nd Edn. ). In Corpus juris, Vol. 33, p. 926, a Judge ad hoc is denned as a Judge or a Lawyer selected to take the place of a regular judge in a case when the latter is disqualified or unable to act. From the above meanings, it appears to me that whenever an appointment is stated to be an ad hoc appointment, it is a stop-gap, fortuitous or purely temporary appointment and is not a regular appointment and does not confer an indefeasible right on the holder of the post to hold the said post. Our High Court in M. Dharmapal v. State Of Mysore (1) has taken a similar view and has held that ad hoc appointments were not regular appointments and that they were purely temporary appointments subject to further orders by the appointing authority. Sri Dharmapal had been appointed on an ad hoc basis pending promulgation of Recruitment Rules and was sought to be reverted after the promulgation of Recruitment Rules and selection of candidates in accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules, which was challenged by him before this Court. In repelling the challenge of Shri dharmapal, a Division Bench of this Court speaking through Narayana pai, CJ observed as under : we do not think that the appointments of the petitioner mentioned above could be given any higher value in law than as purely temporary appointments subject to further orders by the appointing authority, the Government. The fact that the Govt had in fact promulgated rules for recruitment under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and that it was not quite proper to have ignored the rules and proceeded to make ad hoc appointments whether or not they were in accordance with the provisions of the said rules cannot, in our opinion, make any difference to the real legal position that the appointments were not regular, if not actually irregular, if examined in the context of the rules and were according to the express terms of the relevant orders, purely temporary conferring no right on the petitioner to hold them against any further orders the Govt might make. In certain promotional appointments considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Divl Personnel offcer, S. Rly v. Raghavendrachar (AIR 1866 SC 1529) the orders contained a note reading that the promotions were purely provisional subject to revision when seniority lists were drawn up for the the division. When Raghavendrachar was reverted while his junior , one Blasey similarly promoted was retained in the higher grade, the supreme Court observed : ' The case of the respondent, is that Blasey was junior to him and that since he was reverted while Blasey was not, it would amount to a reduction in rank so far as he was concerned. It is claimed that what he complains of is that he lost his seniority by reason of the retention of Blasey in 'the officiating higher post. The respondent's rank in the substantive post, is no way affected by this in the substantive grade, the respondent retained his rank. It may also be added that he was visited with no penal consequences. It is no doubt true that it is not the form but the substance that matters but once it is accepted that the respondent had -no right to the post to which he was provisionally promoted, there can be no dou';t that' his reversion does not amount to a reduction in rank. The Supreme Court made this observation after examining several previous cases and the principles ultimately stated emerging from all the decisions is that an appointment to a higher post made in terms indicating that it was only provisional does not confer upon the appointee, the right to hold that post and that therefore his reversion in the circumstances contemplated by the terms of the appointment will not amount to redudtion in rank. 15. The appointments in this case, as we have already pointed out were expressly described as having been made temporarily and subject to further orders, even the normal term 'officiate' is not employed. They were indubitably therefore purely provisional appointments and the Government reserved to themselves the right to vary the order of original appointment by making further orders in the light of readjustments expected to be made when the fresh ruleg are made complying with all the requirements of the department and the public necessity of securing recognition from the Indian Medical Council for degrees or diplomas sought to be conferred. The contingency contemplated therefore was of making readjustments in compliance with the contempla'. ed fresh rules. As observed by this Court in its order in WP. 684 of 1965 cited above, these were not promotions at all but were mere orders whereby the petitioner was assigned certain posts subject to his being disturbed if found necessary by further orders. 16. We hold therefore, that the petitioner had no indefeasible right to hold the post of Reader in Surgery and the impugned order whereby he was sought to be removed from that post and assigned to some other post is not open to challenge by him. In my view, the legal principle enunciated by this Court in Dharmapal's case (1) is that an ad hoc appointment is equivalent to a purely emporary appointment or promotion and is liable to be terminated at any time, and on the application of that principle, the petitioner, who had not been regularly promoted to the post of an Asst Shop Superintendent and who had not been confirmed in that post and was continuing only on ad hoc basis was liable to be reverted to his substantive post, if there was necessity for such reversion as stated by the respondents in their return. It is now well settled that a person holding a higher post on a purely temporary or an officiating basis acquires no right to hold the post until, he is confirmed or substantively appointed to the said post. It is asserted by the respondents that the petitioner had to be reverted f. o his subs antive post and has been transferred to accommodate his seniors and I have no reason to disbelieve that assertion. It is also not pleaded or was urged by the petitioner that any of his juniors are retained in the higher post. In the above circumstances, I have to uphold the contention of the respondents that the reversion of the petitioner from 'the post of Asst Shop Superintendent held on an ad hoc or purely temporary basis was justified and the transfer thereto also was justified. ( 10 ) SHRI Vijayarangam passionately pleaded before me that the petitioner was a member of a Scheduled Caste and has been working in the higher post and drawing higher emoluments for a considerably long time and that the impugned order has brought about serious financial loss to him. ( 10 ) SHRI Vijayarangam passionately pleaded before me that the petitioner was a member of a Scheduled Caste and has been working in the higher post and drawing higher emoluments for a considerably long time and that the impugned order has brought about serious financial loss to him. Unfortunately these are not matters on which I can grant any relief to the petitioner. That is a matter which the Railway Administration alone can remedy and as to how and with what despatch the same can be remedied are all matters for the respondents alone to examine and decide. ( 11 ) I, therefore, hold that there is no merit in this writ petition and the Rule is liable to be discharged. Rule discharged. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .