JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, A.C.J. 1. Challenge in this writ application is to an order dated 20-2-1978 (Annexure-2) passed by the Director of Public Instruction. Orissa reverting the Petitioner from the post of Principal, B.B. Sanskrit College, Bolangir to his former post of Assistant Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies, Orissa. 2. On 6-10-1967, the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies in the scale of pay of Rs. 185-325/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 230-540/-. On 13-2-1974, he was appointed as Principal. B.B. Sanskrit College, Bolangir in Class II (Junior) of the Orissa Education Service on ad hoc basis for Six months. The ad hoc appointment was extended from time to time thereafter. On 13-12-1974 the State Government made a reference to the Public Service Commission submitting the names of the Petitioner. O.P. No. 3 and some others for recommendation for regular appointment to the post. The Public Service Commission recommended the Petitioner in the first position. By the impugned order dated 20-2-1978 (Annexure-2) passed by the D.P. 1, the Petitioner was reverted to his former post of Assistant Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies and O.P. No. 3. Shri B.M. Padhi was appointed as the Principal on ad hoc basis pending regular appointment to the post on the recommendation of the Commission. 3. The Petitioner's contention is that his ad hoc appointment to the post of Principal having been made by the State Government, the Director of Public Instruction was not competent to pass the order of reversion and that the G.P. No. 3 being junior to him in service was not entitled to be appointed to the post. 4. The stand taken by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 is that the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Principal having been made on ad hoc basis he had no right to the said post and hence he has no locus standi to file this writ application. The Petitioner's contention that opposite party No. 3 is junior to him has been denied and it is contended that on the representation of opposite party No. 3, the Director of Public Instruction had passed orders making him senior to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's contention that opposite party No. 3 is junior to him has been denied and it is contended that on the representation of opposite party No. 3, the Director of Public Instruction had passed orders making him senior to the Petitioner. To meet the Petitioner's contention that the D.P.L was not competent to pass the order of reversion, it is contended that on 18-3-1978 the State Government had passed an order that the post of Principal, B.B. Sanskrit College. Bolangir should be filled up by posting a lecturer in Sanskrit in Class II of Orissa Education Service in the College wing and had also directed that the Petitioner who was then acting as Principal on ad hoc basis might be posted against a post for which he was eligible. It is accordingly urged that the reversion of the Petitioner from the post of Principal to his former post of Assistant Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies was neither illegal nor unconstitutional. 5. An ad hoc appointment is in the nature of a stop-gap arrangement made for a variety of reasons on account of which it is not possible to make a regular appointment. It may be that the rules under which a regular appointment has to be made have yet to be framed or the process for regular appointment involves time and the exigencies of service are such that the post cannot be kept vacant meanwhile. An ad hoc appointment does not by itself confer any right on the adhocist for regular appointment in such a post. But it is equally true that even though an ad hoc appointee has no right to hold that post to which he is so appointed, he can nevertheless be reverted to his lower substantive post only for valid reasons such as his unsuitability to hold the post, the availability of the person holding a lien on the post, selection of a regular incumbent or other exigencies of public service. An ad hoc appointment, though by its nature a precarious tenure, nevertheless carries a limited right to that extent and if such an appointee is reverted illegally and arbitrarily, he would be entitled to challenge it and seek enforcement of his right. 6. The question, therefore, arises whether, the Petitioner in the present case has been validly reverted from the post of Principal to which he was appointed. 6. The question, therefore, arises whether, the Petitioner in the present case has been validly reverted from the post of Principal to which he was appointed. The first ground taken by the opposite parties is that the reversion was made as a consequence of the acceptance of the representation of opposite party No. 3. Thus, it appears, the Petitioner would not have been reverted if the representation of opposite party No. 3 had not been accepted. Admittedly no notice was given to the Petitioner to show cause against the representation of opposite party No. 3. It was incumbent, on the authorities to give notice to the Petitioner on the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. 1967 S.C.D. 551. In that case their Lordships observed: It is true that the, order is administrative In character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences, as already stated: must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first Respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first Respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. It appears, that the Director of Public instruction in his letter No. 4182-G dated 12-6-1974 submitted to Government a gradation list of officers eligible to be considered for the post of Principal, B.B. Sanskrit College, Bolangir showing the Petitioner as senior to opposite party No. 3-vide Annexure-3. If the notice of the representation of opposite party No. 3 had been given to the Petitioner he might have convinced the authority considering the representation that he had been rightly declared as senior to opposite party No. 3 and that the representation of opposite party No. 3 was untenable and unjustified. Such non-issue of notice to the Petitioner violated the principle of natural justice as it affected the civil rights of the Petitioner. In our opinion, once the seniority is determined and it is sought by the authorities concerned to alter it, such authority has no jurisdiction to do so without affording the person who might be prejudicially affected by the proposed order an adequate opportunity of being heard. This is the fundamental requirement of natural justice which cannot be waived under any circumstances. This is the fundamental requirement of natural justice which cannot be waived under any circumstances. The Petitioner has been declared to be senior to opposite party No. 3, since the former came to the S.E.S. cadre on 26-8-1962 in the scale of pay of Rs. 185-325/-, whereas opposite party No. 3 came to such cadre on 11-2-1964 in the same scale of pay (vide Annexure-3). Thus the unilateral decision of the Director of Public Instruction in changing the order of seniority is illegal and unauthorized. 7. This brings us to the next question whether the Director of Public Instruction had the competence to pass the impugned order of reversion. It is not disputed before us that, appointment to the post of Principal which is borne in the Class II (Senior) of the Orissa Education Service is to be made by the State Government and not by the Director of Public Instruction. The Petitioner was first appointed as Principal on ad hoc basis with effect from 13-2-1974 by the Director of Public Instruction as per his order dated 12-3-1974 (Annexure-D) and by a subsequent order dated 6th November, 1974 (Annexure-I) such appointment was ratified by the State Government. If a person is found to have been appointed by an authority who had no power or juris diction to make such an appointment and on whom the Government has not delegated any such power of appointment, the appointment so made is invalid. Appointment can be made by the competent authority by an independent order which will take effect from the date of the order. Thus the ad hoc appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Principal was valid from 6th November, 1974 when the order under Annexure-1 was issued by the State Government. The Petitioner having been appointed to the post of Principal by the State Government the order reverting him to his parent post could not be passed by the D.P. 1. If an appointment is made by a higher authority it is only that higher authority that can exercise the power of ordering reversion. This general principle is illustrated by the provision in Section 17 of the Orissa General Clauses Act which is in consonance with the general law of master and servant. 8. If an appointment is made by a higher authority it is only that higher authority that can exercise the power of ordering reversion. This general principle is illustrated by the provision in Section 17 of the Orissa General Clauses Act which is in consonance with the general law of master and servant. 8. True the State Government passed an order on 18-3-1978 that the post of Principal, B.B. Sanskrit College, Bolangir should be filled up by posting a lecturer in Sanskrit in Class II of the Orissa Education Service in the College wing and also directed that the Petitioner who was then acting as Principal on ad hoc basis might be posted against a post for which he was eligible. But before this order of the State Government was passed, the Petitioner had been reverted on 26-2-1978 by the impugned order dated 20-2-1978 passed by the Director of Public Instruction (Vide Annexure-2). It cannot therefore, be said that the order of reversion was made by the D.P.I. pursuant to any order of the State Government. There was also no Government order for appointment of opposite party No. 3 as Principal on ad hoc basis. The Director of Public Instruction had no competence to appoint opposite party No. 3 to the post of Principal. In view of our foregoing findings, we hold that reversion of the Petitioner to his original post and appointment of opposite party No. 3 to the promotional post in illegal and invalid. 9. The result, therefore, is that the writ application is allowed and the order in Annexure-2 is quashed. The Petitioner is deemed to gave continued in the post of Principal on ad hoc basis till the expiry of the term of his ad hoc appointment. We make no order as to costs. G.B. Patnaik, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed