Short Note : The petitioner was employed as chargeman in Bhilai Steel Plant. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Foreman by order dated 10th January 1969 on the condition that he will have to pass the post selection training within the period of probation. Another order offering appointment as Assistant Foreman was issued to the petitioner on 5th June 1972. The petitioner made various attempts to pass the post selection training examination, but was unable to pass the complete examination. By order dated 11th December 1972, the petitioner was reverted to the post of chargeman having failed to pass the departmental examination for purpose of confirmation in the post of Assistant Foreman. Held : The petitioner first contends that the condition of passing the post selection training examination, which was initially present in the order dated 10th January 1969 appointing him as Assistant Foreman, ceased to be operative when the post was again offered to him on 5th June 1972 without any such condition and that the action of the management in requiring him to pass the examination in November 1972 was an illegal change in an industrial matter as it was brought about without following the procedure of notice under section 31(1) of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. This Court will assume for purposes of this petition that the condition of passing the examination was not there when the petitioner was offered the post of Assistant Foreman in June 1972. The petitioner admittedly is employed in technical capacity and has at all material times been drawing wages in excess of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner, therefore, is not an employee within the meaning of the Act. It is settled that section 31 of the Act is not applicable to non-employees. It was, therefore, not necessary for the management to issue any notice of change under that provision. The contention based on non-compliance with section 31 therefore fails. K.A. Abraham and another v. The General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant M.P. No. 843 of 1972 decided on 10-3-1978, relied on. 2. The next contention of the petitioner is that the revision of the petitioner amounts to the penalty of reduction to lower post and is invalid as it was ordered without following the procedure laid down in clause 31(ii) of the Standing Orders. The procedure adopted when action is taken on the ground of misconduct of the employee. 2. The next contention of the petitioner is that the revision of the petitioner amounts to the penalty of reduction to lower post and is invalid as it was ordered without following the procedure laid down in clause 31(ii) of the Standing Orders. The procedure adopted when action is taken on the ground of misconduct of the employee. Clause 31(ii) opens with the words "where an employee is charged with an offence which may lead to the imposition of major penalty. Acts of misconduct are enumerated in clause 29. Reading these two provisions it is clear to this Court that failure to pass a departmental examination is not an offence or misconduct necessitating any enquiry under clause 31(ii). The petitioner was reverted on the ground that it was necessary for him to pass the departmental examination for being confirmed as Assistant Foreman. Assuming that the management was wrong in its interpretation of the terms and conditions of the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Foreman and it was not necessary for the petitioner to pass the departmental examination for being retained on the post of Assistant. Foreman, yet it cannot be said that the petitioner's reversion amounted to the penalty of reduction to a lower post for an offence of misconduct within clauses 30 and 31 of the Standing Orders. All that the petitioner can urge is that the petitioner's reversion from the post of Assistant Foreman is contrary to the terms on which he was appointed. But such an argument cannot be entertained under Article 226 for it is well settled that purely contractual rights cannot be enforced by a writ petition.