JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, C.J. - Petitioner was appointed as a Pharmacist under the Civil Surgeon (now Chief District Medical Officer) of Koraput on 15-8-1957. At that time Pharmacists were in a separate and distinct cadre under the control of the respective Civil Surgeons. Apart from the Pharmacists employed in the districts, there were also some Pharmacists attached to each of the Medical Colleges and T.B. Hospitals. These Pharmacists employed in these units also formed separate cadres. Besides these, there were 25 Pharmacists attached to the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, who formed themselves into a separate cadre. There used to be an Emergency-Store Section attached to the Health Directorate and it was being managed' by a nontechnical Store Keeper. The Director of Health Services brought the Petitioner on deputation on 14-2-1962 and appointed him as a Pharmacist and put him in charge of the said Emergency Store Section. In October, 1962, the Emergency Reserve Medical Store was created in the Directorate and soon the old Emergency Store Section merged therein. Four posts of Pharmacists were created in the new section. On 8-11-1962 as per Annexure-1, Petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist in the E.R.M.S. Section. Two Pharmacists were brought on deputation and the fourth Pharmacist was a new recruit. When the work-load increased, one of the four posts was designated as Technical Store Keeper and the post carried higher status as also salary. Petitioner was provisionally appointed in that post with effect from 23-9-1969 vide Annexure-2. By order dated 2-2-1970 (Annexure-3) a separate cadre was created for the Pharmacists working in E.R.M.S. and those working in the said unit including the Petitioner were asked to exercise option for absorption in the new cadre. Petitioner opted for absorption. By order dated 16-9-1972, Petitioner was confirmed as a Pharmacist in the new cadre and his provisional appointment was made final on 4-12-1972 as per Annexure-5. With increase in the work-load, the post of Technical Store Keeper was upgraded as Store Superintendent (Technical) vide Annexure-6 and Petitioner was appointed as such Superintendent with effect from 4-12-1972. In March, 1973 the Government decided to form a State Cadre of Pharmacists working in the districts college hospitals, T.B. Hospitals and other hospitals and decided to constitute the Director as the appointing authority and the cadre came to be created from April, 1974. In March, 1973 the Government decided to form a State Cadre of Pharmacists working in the districts college hospitals, T.B. Hospitals and other hospitals and decided to constitute the Director as the appointing authority and the cadre came to be created from April, 1974. In the said cadre, Petitioner was shown only as a Pharmacist though he had already been confirmed as Technical Store Keeper and was then working as Store Superintendent. By order dated 7-7-1975, he was reverted to the post of Pharmacist and Petitioner represented against his reversion. As he failed to obtain relief, he has come with this writ application for quashing him reversion and maintains that he could not have been shown as a Pharmacist in the gradation list and the reversion is bad. 2. A counter has been filed by opposite parties 1 and 2. Therein it has been pleaded that when the post of Technical Store Keeper was created, Petitioner being the senior-most among the Pharmacists then working in the Health Directorate has been provisionally appointed as Technical Store Keeper. It is conceded that the Petitioner has been confirmed as a Pharmacist with effect from 19-6-1969, but it was not after the constitution of the new E.R.M.S. Cadre. It has not been disputed that the post of Technical Store Keeper was an upgraded one. The appointment of the Petitioner as Superintendent is pleaded to have been on stop-gap arrangement and it conferred no right to the post so far as he was concerned. Opposite parties have taken the stand that the post of Technical Store Keeper/Store Superintendent (Technical) is of higher status and selection for appointment to such post is from among the selection grade Pharmacists on the basis of merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority. On that basis, Petitioner became liable to be reverted and he can have no grievance to ventilate. 3. It is not disputed that Petitioner had been appointed as Technical Store Keeper in a higher scale as per Annexure-2. Annexure-4 runs thus: Sri Radha Ranjan Patnaik, Officiating Technical Store Keeper of Emergency Reserve Medical Store, Health Directorate is confirmed as Pharmacist with effect from 19-6-1969. and under Annexure-5, the further order was thus: The appointment of Sri Radha Ranjan Patnaik as Technical Store Keeper made in this Directorate order No. 2747 MS dated 23-9-1969 on provisional basis is made final. and under Annexure-5, the further order was thus: The appointment of Sri Radha Ranjan Patnaik as Technical Store Keeper made in this Directorate order No. 2747 MS dated 23-9-1969 on provisional basis is made final. Though learned Additional Government Advocate tried to explain that Annexure-6 did not have the effect of confirming the Petitioner in the post of Technical Store Keeper, we find no material on record to support such a plea. In terms of Annexure-2, Petitioner had a 'provisional appointment and Annexure-5 in clear terms indicates that the provisional appointment was made final which could only mean that he had been confirmed in that post. Admittedly, the post of Technical Store Keeper was a post of higher status than that of Pharmacist. It did carry a higher scale of pay and, therefore, should be considered as a promotional post, Petitioner had thus been confirmed in a promotional post by the order of 4th December, 1972, in Annexure-5. When a new cadre of Pharmacists on the State level came to be drawn up, Petitioner could no more be shown as a Pharmacist because by then he had already been confirmed in a higher post. Even if it is accepted that in the new post, Petitioner still belonged to the cadre of Pharmacists, in view of the fact that he had been confirmed in a higher post, he should have been shown at the top of the gradation list. The post of Technical Store Keeper was upgraded to that of Superintendent and in that view of the matter, Petitioner who had been confirmed in that post would ordinarily have gone to the new post. The reversion of the Petitioner in the circumstances seems to be wholly unjustified. As it appears, the person who was appointed as Superintendent after reverting the Petitioner has already superannuated and from the counter affidavit it appears that no other person has yet been appointed and some other Pharmacist is in charge of the post. 4. On the analysis indicated of the facts placed before us, there is no escape from the position that the Petitioner's reversion was unjustified and he is entitled to continue as the Superintendent. We accordingly quash the order under Annexure-11 dated 7th of July, 1975 and direct that the Petitioner shall continue as Store Superintendent. 4. On the analysis indicated of the facts placed before us, there is no escape from the position that the Petitioner's reversion was unjustified and he is entitled to continue as the Superintendent. We accordingly quash the order under Annexure-11 dated 7th of July, 1975 and direct that the Petitioner shall continue as Store Superintendent. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to give effect to this order within one month from today. The Petitioner shall be entitled to the higher scale of pay from the date he joins as Superintendent and would have no claim for the past period. There would be no order for costs. B.N. Misra, J. 5. I agree.