JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Petitioner was appointed as an Overseer in the Public Works Department of the State Government in terms of the order dated 4th March, 1947 (Annexure 1). He put in service upto 31-1-1947 when he was relieved from service. He was again appointed as an Estimator Grade III on 6-7-1949 and was promoted to the rank of Overseer Grade II on 16-7-1951. It may be stated that the Petitioner had credit of war service during the Second World War. The Petitioner was confirmed as Overseer with effect from 29-3-1957 in terms of Annexure 4. The Petitioner passed the professional examination held in December, 1960 vide Annexure 5. In the meantime, the designation of Overseer was changed to Sub. Assistant Engineer, and the Petitioner continued in service in the cadre of Sub. Assistant Engineer and in due course was promoted to the selection grade post with effect from 24-7-1972 in that cadre. The Petitioner was given ad hoc promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineer along with others by notification dated 1-1.1974 vide Annexure 7 and actually jointed the promotional post on 3-4-1974. The Public Service Commission recommended the Petitioner's name and as such the Petitioner's promotion was regularised in 1977 vide Annexure 8. On 8th June. 1978 the Petitioner was reverted to the rank of Sub-Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide Annexure 9. Challenge in this writ application is to this reversion. 2. Opposite party No. 1 has filed a counter affidavit in which reliance has been placed in support of the order of reversion on the amendment of the Orissa Service of Engineers' Rules, 1941 with effect from December 7, 1974 giving it retrospective effect from January 1, 1972. Under the amended rule, for appointment as Assistant Engineer the requisite qualification was an Engineering Diploma. Since the Petitioner did not possess the same he was reverted. The proviso which came by way of amendment in December, 1974 reads thus: Provided that Junior Engineers who have not completed at least 2 years of service and Sub-Assistant Engineers who are not Diploma-holders in Engineering and have not completed at least 10 years of service on the first day of August of the year during which the vacancy arises may not be considered for promotion. 3. The Petitioner's main contention is that the rule came in December, 1974 and the Petitioner's promotion was prior to it. 3. The Petitioner's main contention is that the rule came in December, 1974 and the Petitioner's promotion was prior to it. Though the rule had retrospective effect from January 1, 1972, the Petitioner, was not affected by its mischief. Reliance is placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramadev Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and Anr. ILR 1976 Cutt 317, There is no dispute that the decision if in all fours. At page 322 of the Reporter, Shankar, C.J. stated: The proviso, it would be seen, applied to cases of promotion and only to those cases which were to be 'considered for promotion' when 'the vacancy arises'. There is nothing in the proviso or in any other part of the Amended Rules to indicate that it was intended by these Rules to reopen cases in which the promotions had already been made. As an instance reference may he made to Clause (a) of Rule 9 of the unamended 1941 Rules and the clause as amended by the Amended Rules. The clause in the unamended Rules provided that a candidate for direct recruitment to the service must not ordinarily be over 28 years of age on the 1st of Adjusts of the year in which applications are invited, but this age limit may be relaxed by the State Government in suitable cases having regard to the qualification and experience of the candidate. This clause in the Amended Rules provided that age limit may be relaxed in respect of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, candidates with approved military service and such other categories, to such extent as the Government may by special order, specify from time to time. The result of the change was that whereas under the original rules the age limit could be relaxed by the Government in suitable cases having regard to qualification and experience, under the Amended Rules the maximum age limit could be relaxed only in the case of candidates of the specified categories. This did not mean, and it is also not the case of the opposite parties either that this amendment entitled the Government to cancel the appointment of those direct recruits whose age limits had already been relaxed by the State Government after January 1,1972 under the unamended Rules. This did not mean, and it is also not the case of the opposite parties either that this amendment entitled the Government to cancel the appointment of those direct recruits whose age limits had already been relaxed by the State Government after January 1,1972 under the unamended Rules. Likewise, new Rule 14-A has been introduced into the Amended Rules after Rule 14 of the 1941 Rules, which provides for reservation of such percentage of vacancies in any year as may be determined by the Government from time to time for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It would be most unreasonable to construe this rule to mean that it was intended to operate retrospectively right from January 1, 1972 to affect the appointments already made without the reservation as envisaged in the amended Rule 14-A. Rule 14-A obviously has a prospective operation from the very nature and the language used therein. After dealing with precedents and other authorities the learned Chief Justice ultimately vacated the order cancelling the promotion of the Petitioner in the reported decision. For the same ground as here, we are satisfied - that the ratio of the reported decision has full application and therefore, the order of reversion as per Annexure 9 cannot be sustained. 4. The writ application is accordingly allowed with costs and the order of reversion is quashed. The Petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in this promotional post without any break and would be entitled to all service benefits as per rules. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/-. N.K. Das, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed