JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against an order of D.P. Gupta dated 12th August, 1975 declining to quash the order of reversion dated 29th June, 1961 (Annexure 7), and to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondents to forebear from giving effect to the order of de-confirmation dated 9th October, 1973, (Annexure 15) and the appellate order dated 23rd June, 1974, (Annexure 16). 2. Having heard the learned counsel, we have formed the opinion that no ether conclusions than the on arrived at by the learned Single Judge was possible. Indeed, the construction placed by the learned Single Judge on. the appellate order dated 15th December, 1961. (Annexure 8), is the only, construction possible. The petitioner who was appointed as an officiating Phone Inspector by order dated 9th December, 1957, (Annexure 5), was revered by order of the Sub-divisional Officer Phones, Jodhpur dated 29th June, 1961 to his substantive post of Telegraph Mechanic with effect from June 30, 1961 under Explanation (IV) to Rule 13 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The recession was due to the fact that his performance as a Phone Inspector was found not to be satisfactory. Thus the reversion was not by "way of punishment. The contention of the learned counsel that during the meanwhile the petitioner haying passed written test; undergone the training, and selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee, he should be regarded as having been confirmed, can hardly be accepted. 3. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal against his order of reversion. The Director of Posts and Telegraphs, Jaipur by his order dated 15th December, 1961, (Annexure 8) on a consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner, directed that he be given another opportunity to work as a Phone Inspector, be clearly told that this was a final chance for him to re-habilitate himself and that his work and conduct could be carefully watched. The petitioner was, therefore, reappointed as Telephone Inspector with effect from 23rd December, 1961. Thereafter, he was confirmed in that post with effect from 1-3-1960. This was obviously wrong and the Ministry of Law, Government of India, advised the Post Master General, Jaipur to pass an order of de-confirmation. The petitioner was accordingly de-confirmed and reappointed with effect from 1st March, 1964. 4. Thereafter, he was confirmed in that post with effect from 1-3-1960. This was obviously wrong and the Ministry of Law, Government of India, advised the Post Master General, Jaipur to pass an order of de-confirmation. The petitioner was accordingly de-confirmed and reappointed with effect from 1st March, 1964. 4. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the petitioner could be confirmed only from a date subsequent to his re-promotion. He having been de-confirmed and re-appointed to the post of Phone Inspector with 1st from 1st March, 1964 he could not be confirmed or take seniority from his earlier appointment as an officiating Phone Inspector with effect from 1st March, 1960. 5. The order of de-confirmation having been passed on the basis of the order of reversion dated 29th, June, 1961, the writ petition filed on 31st March, 1975 was highly belated. Merely because the petitioner had made fruitless representations to the Ministry of Law or the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi, that fact does not explain the inordinate delay in the filing of the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that after bifurcation of Jodhpur District and the services of the petitioner were transferred to Jodhpur District and, therefore, the D.E.T., Ajmer had no authority to, pass that order of reversion or the order of de-confirmation. He further contends that the order of reversion was, in substance, a device in order to defeat the rights of the petitioner to be promoted to the selection grade. The appellant cannot be permitted to raise the contentions. These contentions were not raised before the learned Single Judge. Besides, they have no merit. 7. The special appeal is therefore rejected summarily.Appeal rejected. *******