JUDGMENT : N.H. Bhatt, J. This is a petition by the petitioner, a member of the backward class community, who was at one time appointed as a Craft Instructor in the Fisheries Department of the State of Gujarat. Prior to 31st January, 1964 he had put in about 8 years of service in some Schools at Baroda, but finding that he had better prospects in the Government service, he quitted the appointment. By the order Annexure 'A' dated 13-1-1964, he was temporarily appointed to officiate as a Craft Instructor at Government School at Baroda because a post had fallen vacant due to reversion of one Shri Lakadawala to the post of an Assistant Craft Instructor. The petitioner went on merely at that post till he came to be relieved from that post by the order of the officer-in charge of the Fisheries Department by his order at Annexure 'E' dated 7-7-1970. The order states that Fisheries School run at Baroda by the Government was decided to be closed. The order further states that the petitioner could not be accommodated in any other equivalent post and so he was absorbed as an Assistant Teacher in some government school at Bulsar. The pay-scale of the post of Craft Instructor was Rs. 225 but at the new place of assignment he was given the salary of Rs. 120 per month because that seems to be the stage of the scale attached to the new post. This salary of Rs. 120 was later on fixed by the Government at Rs. 132 taking into account the experience of the petitioner and this rise was given to him by virtue of the powers conferred on the Government under Rs. 55 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules. This is what he (sic. is) stated in Annexure 'J' dated 24-11-1971. The petitioner went on contending right from his taking over new assignment at Bulsar that his pay should be protected and he should be given salary on the basis of his last pay drawn. He went on from time to time addressing representations and at one stage he even requested the Government by his letter Annexure 'N' dated 8-3-72 that on the abolition of the post of the Craft Instructor he should have been at any rate appointed as an Assistant Craft Instructor. He went on from time to time addressing representations and at one stage he even requested the Government by his letter Annexure 'N' dated 8-3-72 that on the abolition of the post of the Craft Instructor he should have been at any rate appointed as an Assistant Craft Instructor. Ultimately by the reply Annexure 'P' on 24th April, 1974, the petitioner was informed that he was appointed on the post of an Assistant Teacher and so his request to have the minimum pay of Rs. 225 fixed, for him could not be entertained. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition for a writ directing the respondents to treat the petitioner continued in the rank of Craft Instructor since July, 1970 and further directing the respondents to pay the difference arising due to reduction in salary in July, 1970 upto date and treat the petitioner as a Craft Instructor all throughout for the purpose of seniority, pay, future promotion, gratuity, pension, etc. as if he had never been reduced in rank and salary. 2. The say of the Government in reply to the petitioner's claim is to be found in their affidavit filed by the Personal Assistant to the Commissioner of Fisheries. As I had sought some more instructions by way of elaboration a further affidavit has been filed by the same Personal Assistant on 9-2-1978. The contentions of the petitioner deserve to be dealt with in the light of these two affidavits. 3. The first contention that was advanced by the petitioner was that the petitioner was so to say reverted to the post of an Assistant Teacher without any reason. His contention was that two persons junior to him viz. one Shri G.K.G. Lakadawala and one Shri Bhulabhai Patel who were junior to him were retained in service as Craft Instructors, but he was denied the very post. 4. A few facts as they emerge from the affidavits filed by the State require to be stated. 5. The petitioner had not laid bare the factual background when the petitioner came to be appointed as per the order Annexure 'A' in 1964, there were in all four posts of Craft Instructors. The fourth in the order of seniority was Mr. Lakadawala who was earlier appointed directly as a Craft Instructor. Some time prior to the appointment of the petitioner, the Government took a decision to revert Mr. The fourth in the order of seniority was Mr. Lakadawala who was earlier appointed directly as a Craft Instructor. Some time prior to the appointment of the petitioner, the Government took a decision to revert Mr. Lakadawala who had no lien to any lowest post because, as said above, he was recruited directly to the post of a Craft Instructor. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume, though not expressly stated, that his reversion might be by way of penalty. Right from 1964 till 1970 the State had only four posts of Craft Instructors and obviously the petitioner was the man who had entered last. In July, 1970 the School at Baroda came to be closed by the Government with the result that the post of a Craft Instructor at Baroda came to be abolished. The result was that there were left only three posts of Craft Instructors in the State. Ordinarily the petitioner would have been required to go home for want of any equivalent post available to him, as a matter of right, but as is usual with the Government, compassion prevailed and the petitioner was offered totally a new post of an Assistant Teacher in one of the Schools managed by the Government. The order dated 7-7-1970 Annexure 'E' to the petition very clearly states that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Government School at Bulsar "for want of any post for him". The petitioner thought that he had a right to continue on the post of a Craft Instructor and if that post was not available he had a right to be accommodated in the lower post of an Assistant Craft Instructor. This gross misconception on his part has taken the form of obsession for him for all these years and unfortunately that is one of the two basis of this petition. It is an established principle of law that if an incumbent in the office loses the job on account of abolition of a post, no civil right of his can be said to be adversely affected. It is neither dismissal, nor removal nor reduction in rank in legal parlance. As the order Annexure 'E' very clearly states, there was no equivalent post available to him and he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, a cadre altogether different. It is neither dismissal, nor removal nor reduction in rank in legal parlance. As the order Annexure 'E' very clearly states, there was no equivalent post available to him and he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, a cadre altogether different. The petitioner reported for duty there and then went on clamouring for the pay of a Craft Instructor or at any rate the pay of the lower Cadre viz. that of Assistant Craft Instructor. There is no legal basis for his grievance. What had been extended by the government to him as a matter of grace, has been treated by him as a matter of right. The first ground of challenge, therefore, obviously fails. 6. Mr. Anand, the learned advocate for the petitioner, however, pressed into service the second ground of attack and, I must say very vigorously. Mr. Anand contended that, if Mr. Lakadawala who was initially appointed as Craft Instructor came to be accommodated as an Assistant Craft Instructor in the event of reversion, the petitioner also should have been equally treated and should have been accommodated as Assistant Craft Instructor, following the example of Mr. Lakadawala. As said by me above, Mr. Lakadawala had no right to the post of an Assistant Craft instructor but, because there was a post of an Assistant Craft Instructor, the Government compassionately accommodated him. But this graceful act on the part of the Government does not set any principle of rule of conduct which could be clung to by the petitioner for advancing his cause. The stray case of such accommodation cannot be made the basis of equality of treatment in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In ground 'F' of his petition, the petitioner had simply stated that two persons who were serving under him, were appointed as Craft Instructors. The Government in its replies makes it very clear that Mr. Lakadawala came to be promoted as Craft Instructor only in the year 1974 when one of the three permanent posts of a Craft Instructor had fallen vacant due to retirement of one of the three incumbents, one Mr. Deshpande. What was made available to Mr. Lakadawala in the year 1974 cannot necessarily be claimed by the petitioner who was out of the cadre long back in July, 1970. Deshpande. What was made available to Mr. Lakadawala in the year 1974 cannot necessarily be claimed by the petitioner who was out of the cadre long back in July, 1970. He cannot have any legal claim to his post of a Craft Instructor in 1974 when for the first time the vacancy arose in the cadre of three posts due (sic owing?) to retirement of Mr. Deshpande. Mr. Anand, however urged that the petitioner's representations all throughout were pending before the Government and the Government should have at that time considered the claim of the petitioner. It is to be noted that "Should have" and "Must have" have got a vast degree of difference. If the Government had in the year 1974 sympathetically considered the claim of the petitioner, and particularly because of his being the only scheduled caste member available for the post of Craft Instructor , it would have been an act of grace on the part of the Government and I would certainly request the Government that in the exercise of its discretion and if there be no other legal impediments, the Government still should consider the claim of the petitioner on compassionate grounds for the post of a Craft Instructor. But as far as legal aspect goes the petitioner has not been able to make good his right to the post. 7. The further ground of grievance of the petitioner in his petition was that one Mr. Bhulabhai Patel who was junior to him was retained in service. The affidavit states that there is no person named Bhulabhai Patel appointed as a Craft Instructor during the year 1966 or at any time. Mr. Anand, however, said that the petitioner wanted to refer to Mr. B.C. Tandel reference to whom has been made in paragraph 6 of the second affidavit of the respondents. The Government has explained the case of Mr. Tandel in paragraph 6 of their affidavit. The Government said that he was initially appointed as an Assistant Craft Instructor on 29-11-1963 and his services had come to be terminated on 17-2-1964, due to reversion of Mr. Lakadawala. This Mr. Tandel was again appointed as an Assistant Craft Instructor only in the year 1966 and till the affidavit was filed he was holding only that post. This would show that the petitioner is labouring also under grave misconception of facts. 8. Lakadawala. This Mr. Tandel was again appointed as an Assistant Craft Instructor only in the year 1966 and till the affidavit was filed he was holding only that post. This would show that the petitioner is labouring also under grave misconception of facts. 8. As far as the law goes, the petitioner has no legal claim and the petition on that count would be liable to be dismissed. However, I would again request the Government that, if there are no legal handicaps, they may consider sympathetically the case of the petitioner as they considered the case of Mr. Lakadawala at the time of the alleged reversion in the year 1964. If Mr. Tandel could be retrenched to accommodate Mr. Lakadawala, the Government could have followed the similar step to accommodate the petitioner. This is all on moral plane. As far as this Court is concerned, the rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Rule discharged.