Short Note : 1. The plaintiff Hariram was a confirmed Farrash (Peon) employed in the Government Science College, Raipur, when he was promoted to officiate as Assistant Laboratory Attendant by the order dated 17-11-1956. The order expressly stated that this promotion of the plaintiff was temporary and that he was liable to be reverted to his substantive post without any notice, if his work and conduct was not found to be satisfactory. Admittedly, no order confirming the plaintiff in the post of Assistant Laboratory Attendant was passed so that, in these circumstances, he was continuing in the officiating capacity when, by an order dated 8-12-1969, he was reverted to his substantive rank of Farrash. To challenge this reversion from his officiating capacity in the post of Assistant Laboratory Attendant to his substantive rank of Farrash the plaintiff bad filed the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit and that decree had been affirmed by the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff will be deemed to be a quasi permanent Government servant because of his officiation in the higher post for such a long period. This had led to the further appeal by the State. Held : It is common ground that the M.P. Government Servants (Temporary and quasi Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 have no application to the present case and that the plaintiff's case is governed by the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules 1961. It is therefore, obvious that the reason which led to the decision by the First Appellate Court is not available to support the decree under appeal. It is well settled that the reversion of a Government servant to his substantive rank from the higher rank during the period of his officiation, for unsatisfactory work, does not amount to a punishment and is, therefore not actionable. The plaintiff's case falls squarely within this rule However, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent, referred to rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, in an attempt to support the decree. That rule itself permits reversion of officiating Government servants to their substantive rank during the period of trial, i.e., while they are officiating on a higher post. That rule itself permits reversion of officiating Government servants to their substantive rank during the period of trial, i.e., while they are officiating on a higher post. The plaintiff had not been confirmed as Assistant Laboratory Attendant and, therefore, he did not acquire any right to that post and the impugned reversion was made during the period of his officiation in the higher post. That rule itself permitted such an action. It does not, therefore, improve the plaintiff's position in any manner. It is no doubt, true that continuance of the plaintiff in an officiating capacity without confirmation on a higher post for as long as 13 years was rather unusual and his reversion to the substantive rank after such a long time was indeed harsh. All the same, in view of the fact that the rules applicable to him did not confer on him any right to the higher post even after such a long period, leaves no option with the Court except to accept the defendant's contention. That the position in law was this is common ground before the Court, i.e. the plaintiff was merely an officiating Assistant Laboratory Attendant having acquired no right to that higher post even after officiating there for 13 years, when he was reverted to his substantive rank. This appeal will, therefore, have to be allowed. Suit dismissed. Appeal allowed.