Short Note : 1. This is a service matter. The petitioner has been ordered to go back to Panchayat Department as social Education Organisation from the post of Development Assistant under the Planning and Development Department. 2. The petitioner challenges the order of the Government on the ground that his reversion to Panchayat Department, entailed penal consequences and he having acquired the status of a quasi-permanent servant as Development Assistant, the order sending him back to a lower rank without complying with the provisions of Article 311 of the constitution was bad and liable to be struck down. Held : The petitioner has been taken from the Panchayat Department but it cannot be said that he was on deputation to the Planning and Development Department. Article 77 of the Civil Service Regulation indicates that an Officer said to be on deputation when he is detached on special temporary duty for the performance of which there is no permanently or temporarily sanctioned appointment. Apparently, the question of deputation did not come here as the Government was not taking Officers on deputation but was recruiting them for the sanctioned appointments. Under rules 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, the recruitment to service may be by direct recruitment, by promotion or transfer of person or persons already employed for another service or post. The petitioner had, therefore, come by the third method, that is by transfer of his service. If, therefore he remained in the post of Development Assistant for more than five years he would acquire the status of quasi-permanent service, as stated above and the fact that he was also declared Quasi-Permanent as a special Education Organiser would not come in this way. It would be observed that the post to which he has now officiated as Development Assistant was superior carrying better emolument and was of Gazetted rank. If he had acquired a quasi-permanent status in subordinate post, it could not be held as an impediment to his acquiring the quasi-permanent status in a superior rank. 3. The petitioner after his appointment as Development Assistant on 6-10-1969, continued to officiate on the post till 2-11-1974. He officiated on the post for more than five years. If he had acquired a quasi-permanent status in subordinate post, it could not be held as an impediment to his acquiring the quasi-permanent status in a superior rank. 3. The petitioner after his appointment as Development Assistant on 6-10-1969, continued to officiate on the post till 2-11-1974. He officiated on the post for more than five years. Sub-clause (iii) of rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-permanent Service Rules, 1960 was inserted by Notification No. 0/3/8/73/3/1 dated 11-1-74 and deleted vide Notification No. P.C. 3/51/75-3-1 dated 22-12-75. This is deemed to have been omitted with effect from 11-1-74. This sub-clause read as under :- "(iii) If he is declared Quasi-Permanent as a result of clauses (i) and (ii) or in the absence of such declaration if he has completed five years of continuous service." 4. The petitioner here had already completed five year's continuous service of Development Assistant when Sub-Clause (iii) was deleted. He had, therefore, acquired the status of a Quasi-Permanent servant and the question is whether such status could be taken away by deleting the rule subsequently and declaring that the rule shall be deemed to have been omitted with effect from an earlier date. A Division Bench of this Court in A.D. Tannirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1976 MPLJ 667 ) held that the amendment on 22nd December, 1975 could not apply to those who had already acquired quasi-permanent status and the amendment was invalid so far as it deprived the status of those who had already acquired quasi-permanent status. The petitioner having acquired the state of a Quasi-Permanent servant could not be reverted to a lower rank in the Panchayat and Social Welfare Department without complying with Art. 311 of the Constitution in view of the decision in Tannirawar's case and the petitioner must succeed on this ground. 1976 MPLJ 667 relied on Petition on allowed.