N.M. KASLIWAL J.—The petitioner was a substantive Assistant Manager in the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (herein-after referred to as the Corporation). By order dated June 8, 1983 (Annexure 1), the petitioner and 12 other Assistant Managers were promoted on ad hoc officiating basis on the post of Deputy Manager for a period of six months or till persons selected by Departmental Promotion Committee were available. This appointment was extended from time to time and the last order was dated April 25, 1984, by which extension was granted on ad hoc officiating basis for a period of six months. The case of the petitioner is that he was expecting a further order of extension but by order dated November 13, 1984 (Annexure R/2) the petitioner and two others namely Shri K. S. Singhal and R.K. Pokharna were reverted to the post of Assistant Manager with immediate effect. The case of the petitioner is that though he was reverted on the post of Assistant Manager but 25 persons including 10 of those who were appointed with the petitioner initially were given further extension and new appointments were also made on the post of Deputy Manager. It has been further alleged that according to the seniority list dated March 29, 1984, all the other persons except Shri M. K. Sharma, who have been continued on the post of Deputy Manager were junior to the petitioner. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner was put under suspension during this period but the order of suspension was revoked by order dated September 15, 1984. A memorandum informing the petitioner that an inquiry is proposed to be held against him was also issued on September 14, 1984. After the reinstatement of the petitioner from suspension on September 15, 1984 he was kept awaiting posting order from September 15, 1984 to September 23, 1984 and thereafter, he was transferred from Jaipur to Jodhpur vide order dated September 24, 1984. The petitioner joined as Deputy Manager at Jodhpur on October 1, 1984. The case of the petitioner is that after his joining at Jodhpur on October 1, 1984, he effected recovery of loans to the extent of Rs.1609 Lacs which was highest since April, 1984 at least. The case of the petitioner as such is that his reversion is illegal inasmuch as it was discriminatory and violative of Arts. The case of the petitioner is that after his joining at Jodhpur on October 1, 1984, he effected recovery of loans to the extent of Rs.1609 Lacs which was highest since April, 1984 at least. The case of the petitioner as such is that his reversion is illegal inasmuch as it was discriminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as persons junior to him have been kept on the post of Deputy Manager. It has also been alleged that the reversion of the petitioner is further illegal for the reason that it was penal in character. According to the petitioner, the only reason for his reversion was the supposed delinquency which the petitioner is taken to have committed in respect of which an inquiry has already been commenced against him The inquiry has not yet been held and concluded and the reversion could not have been made unless the charges were proved against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner in para 5 of the writ petition mentioned that the only reason which the petitioner can think of as having prompted the respondent Corporation to effect the reversion of the petitioner is the pendency of an inquiry against him. It has been further alleged that the inquiry commenced against the petitioner by serving a memorandum dated September 14, 1984. Earlier to this the petitioner was suspended by an order dated April 25,1984. It has been further alleged that this inquiry aforesaid was revoked as the matter was not serious enough to warrant his suspension. The petitioner was reinstated by an order dated September 14, 1984. 3. In reply to the show cause notice, that Corporation stated that the Rajasthan Financial Corporation is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioners last order of extension was dated April 25, 1984. A perusal of the same would show that the petitioners appointment was further extended for a period of six months on an ad hoc basis or till the persons selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee were available. It has been further submitted that the order of reversion of the petitioner was issued on November 13, 1984 alongwith two other persons namely S/Shri K. S. Singhal and R. K. Pokharna, who were also reverted. It has been further submitted that the order of reversion of the petitioner was issued on November 13, 1984 alongwith two other persons namely S/Shri K. S. Singhal and R. K. Pokharna, who were also reverted. It has been further alleged by the Corporation that since the petitioners working was not found satisfactory, he was not granted further extension on ad hoc officiating basis. It was wrong to state by the petitioner that the inquiry against the petitioner has been revoked. The inquiry is still continuing. The preliminary inquiry report has been received and a final charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. Thus the allegation of the petitioner that simply because he had been reinstated and as such the inquiry has been dispensed with is absolutely wrong and is denied. The petitioner had made absolutely false averment in this regard that the inquiry had been revoked and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It has been further submitted by the Corporation that 13 persons were appointed as Deputy Manager on ad hac officiating basis by order dated June 8,1983 but the petitioners working was no found to be satis-factory and he has been reverted along with two other persons, whose work was also not found to be satisfactory. The petitioner has no right to the post of Deputy Manager as his appointment was purely ad hoc and temporary and his working has not been found to be satisfactory and therefore, he can be reverted at any time. 4. It has been further submitted by the Corporation that so far as the pendency of inquiry is concerned, if after the inquiry the petitioner is found to be guilty then alone the punishment will follow but simply because of pendency of inquiry, it cannot be said that the reversion of the petitioner is penal in character. The last extension of the petitioner expired on October 25, 1984, and thereafter, he was not given further extension as his work was not found to be satisfactory. 5. The petitioner then filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent. In the rejoinder it was submitted that at no stage the petitioner was informed in any manner whatsoever that his work has not been found to be satisfactory. It was further alleged that a clarification of what has been stated in para 5 of the writ petition was necessary. In the rejoinder it was submitted that at no stage the petitioner was informed in any manner whatsoever that his work has not been found to be satisfactory. It was further alleged that a clarification of what has been stated in para 5 of the writ petition was necessary. In para 5 of the writ petition it had come to be staled "this inquiry aforesaid was revoked as the matter was not serious enough to warrant his suspension" but use of word inquiry was just a mistake which was apparent both from the latter part of this para and from the writ petition as well. The mistake as such is regretted. 6. On December 10, 1984, Shri S.N. Thanvi, General Manager (Administration), Rajasthan Financial Corporation filed an affidavit in which it has been stated that the Corporation had reviewed cases of all the Assistant Managers, who were promoted on ad hoc officiating basis for a period of six months till persons selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee were available. At the time of review of all the candidates the case of Shri K.K. Jain (petitioner ) was also considered and it was found that even after his reinstatement, his work has not yet improved and various complaints involving his integrity were received. It was, therefore, considered that he may be reverted to his substantive post of Assistant Manager. 7. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner has been reverted from the officiating post of Deputy Manager to his substantive post of Assistant Manager while juniors to the petitioner have been retained on the post of Deputy Manager and this is a case of discrimination plain and simple. Reliance in this regard is placed on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sughar Singh (1). 8. It has been further submitted by Mr. Mridul that it has been admitted in the affidavit of Shri S.N. Thanvi that the case of the petitioner was considered at the time of review of all the candidates and it was found that even after the reinstatement of the petitioner his work had not improved. The petitioner had joined his post of Deputy Manager after reinstatement on October 1, 1984 and as such the material for holding that the work of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory must be between October 1, 1984 and November 13, 1984. The petitioner had joined his post of Deputy Manager after reinstatement on October 1, 1984 and as such the material for holding that the work of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory must be between October 1, 1984 and November 13, 1984. It is submitted that the petitioner has categorically stated in his counter affidavit that there was nothing adverse against him in the record between October 1, 1984 and November 12, 1984 except that an inquiry had been initiated against him prior to October 1, 1984. It is thus, submitted by Mr. Mridul that it was manifest that it was on account of the inquiry alone that the reversion of the petitioner has been ordered. It is submitted that if the reversion has been made on account of the pendency of inquiry then the order of reversion is penal in character and reliance in this regard has been placed on The State of Rajasthan vs. Amolak Chand(2). 9. Mr. A.K. Mathur appearing on behalf of the Corporation submitted that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Manager was merely on ad hoc officiating basis and such period had come to an end on October 25, 1984. So far as the inquiry is concerned, the same had nothing to do with the order of reversion. The petitioner has been served with charges after holding preliminary inquiry and action would be taken separately in the inquiry after the conclusion of such inquiry according to law. The case of the petitioner for further extension was considered independently of any inquiry pending against him and as stated by Shri Thanvi in the affidavit it was found that even after reinstatement the work of the petitioner had not yet impro-ved and various complaints involving integrity of the petitioner were received and it was, therefore, considered that the petitioner may be reverted on substantive post of Assistant Manager. The petitioner had no right to continue on the post of Deputy Manager and his reversion was made as he was not found to be suitable to continue on the post of Deputy Manager. The petitioner had no right to continue on the post of Deputy Manager and his reversion was made as he was not found to be suitable to continue on the post of Deputy Manager. It was further submitted that there was no question of any discrimination as the reversion of the petitioner has been made on the ground of unsuitability of the petitioner for the job and/or for his work being unsatisfactory and this makes the petitioner a class apart from other temporary servants who have been retained in service though they might be junior to the petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed on The Manager, Govt. Branch Press v. D. B. Belliappa (3). 10. It was further submitted by Mr. Mathur that the order of reversion in the present case is not at all penal in character. No stigma has been cast on the petitioner and the reversion has been made simpliciter on the ground that the work of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory even after reinstatement of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Manager. It is immaterial whether such period may be from October 1.1984 to November 13, 1984 only. The period of extension of the petitioner had come to an end on October 25, 1984 anc therefore the cases of all the persons holding the post of Deputy Manager on ad hoc officiating basis were considered for further extension and not only the petitioner but two others were found unsuitable for giving further extension and such action taken by the Corporation cannot be challenged by the petitioner. Mr. Mathur further submitted that the ratio of Sughar Singhs case (supra relied by Mr. Mridul cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Sughar Singhs case supra) has been explained and clarified by the Supreme Court in The Regional Manager Vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey (4). Mr. Mathur also placed reliance on The Union of India V.P.S. Bhatt (5) and Braj Nath Rai v. Union of India (6). 11. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. 12. Pawan Kumar Dubey (4). Mr. Mathur also placed reliance on The Union of India V.P.S. Bhatt (5) and Braj Nath Rai v. Union of India (6). 11. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. 12. Though, the petitioner in para 5 of the writ petition had made a wrong statement that the inquiry itself had been revoked as the matter was not serious enough to warrant his suspension, the petitioner in the rejoinder to the reply has submitted that what he actually meant was that his order of suspension was revoked as the matter was not considered serious enough to warrant his suspension. The mistake of using the word inquiry in place of suspension has been regretted, and I think the writ petition cannot be dismissed on this mistake as contended by learned counsel for the Corporation. 13. Now taking into consideration the merits of the case it remains undisputed that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Deputy Manager merely on ad hoc officiating basis. This appointment was made initially for six months by order dated June 8, 1983 and thereafter extended from time to time. The list extension in this regard was given on April 25, 1984, for six months which came to an end on October 25, 1984. There is no allegation of any mala fide against any officer of the Corporation. Mr.S.N. Thanvi has filed an affidavit in which it has been categorically stated that at the time of review of all the candidates, the case of Shri M.K. Jain was also considered and it was found that even after his reinstatement his work had not yet improved and various complaints involving his integrity were received. It was, therefore, considered that he may be reverted to his substantive post of Assistant Manager. The petitioner has failed to show as to why the above statement made by Shri Thanvi in his affidavit should not be believed. It was, therefore, considered that he may be reverted to his substantive post of Assistant Manager. The petitioner has failed to show as to why the above statement made by Shri Thanvi in his affidavit should not be believed. Shri Thanvi has stated in the affidavit that he being the General Manager (Administration) is competent authority to deal with the personal matter of the employees of the Corporation and the Corporation had reviewed the cases of all the Assistant Managers, who were promoted on ad hoc officiating basis The order of reversion has been passed not only in respect of the petitioner alone but against S/Shri K.S. Singhal and R.K. Pokharna also which is clear from Ex. R./2 dated November 13, 1984. The order dated November 13, 1984, reads as under: RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION Udyog Bhawan Tilak Marg Jaipur-302 005 Ref: No. RFC/PA-2 (6) 3457 Dated 13th Nov., 1984. ORDER The following Asstt. Managers who were promoted on ad hoc officiating basis on the post of Dy. Manager are hereby reverted to the post of A.M. with immediate effect. They would, however, continue to work as A.M. at their existing place of duties till further orders. S.No. Name Present place of posting 1. Shri M.K. Jain Jodhpur-I Branch. 2. " K.S. Singhal Bhiwadi Branch 3. " R.K. Pokharna Regional Officer, Bikaner. By order of M.D. Sd/- (S.N. Thanvi) General Manager (A)." There is no stigma whatsoever cast on the petitioner in the above order of reversion. The motive for issuing order of reversion is immaterial. Though the petitioner has made an allegation that the order of reversion of the petitioner has been made merely on account of the inquiry pending against him but there is neither any material nor any justification for taking such a view. The Corporation has taken clear stand that the reversion has been made on account of work of the petitioner having not been improved even after reinstatement and complaints received regarding integrity of the petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the above stand taken by the Corporation. The conduct of the Corporation that even the order of suspension passed during inquiry of the petitioner was revoked on September 15, 1984, shows that there was no malice or ill-will on the part of the Corporation to revert the petitioner on some extraneous ground. There is no reason to disbelieve the above stand taken by the Corporation. The conduct of the Corporation that even the order of suspension passed during inquiry of the petitioner was revoked on September 15, 1984, shows that there was no malice or ill-will on the part of the Corporation to revert the petitioner on some extraneous ground. After the order of suspension being revoked by the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post of Deputy Manager and after October 25, 1984, the case of the petitioner was considered alongwith others for extension and the petitioner and two others were not found suitable to continue on the post of Deputy Manager and thus, the action taken by the Corporation cannot be said to be penal in character. 14. In D.B. Belliappas case (supra) it has been observed by the Supreme Court as under:- "If the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated in accordance with the conditions of his service on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct or his unsuitability for the job and/or for his work being unsatisfactory, or for a like reason which marks him off a class apart from other temporary servants who have been retained in service, there is no question of the applicability of Article 16, Conversely, if the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated arbitrarily, and not on the ground of his unsuitability, unsatisfactory conduct or the like which would put him in a class apart from his juniors in the same service, a question of un-fair discrimination may arise, notwithstanding the fact that in terminating his service, the appointing authority was purporting to act in accordance with the terms of the employment. Where a charge of unfair discrimination is levelled with specifically or improper motives are imputed to the authority making the impugned order of termination of the service, it is the duty of the authority to dispel that charge by disclosing to the Court the reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action. Excepting perhaps, in cases analogous to those covered by Article 311 (2). proviso (c), the authority cannot withhold such information from the Court on the same excuse, that the impugned order is purely administrative and not judicial, having been passed in exercise of its administrative discretion under the rules governing the conditions of the service." 15. Excepting perhaps, in cases analogous to those covered by Article 311 (2). proviso (c), the authority cannot withhold such information from the Court on the same excuse, that the impugned order is purely administrative and not judicial, having been passed in exercise of its administrative discretion under the rules governing the conditions of the service." 15. In the case in hand before me once it is held that the order of reversion of the petitioner was made on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct or his unsuitability for the job and/or for his work being unsatisfactory, the case of the petitioner falls as a class apart from other employees who have been retained on the post of Deputy Manager. 16. In Sughar Singhs case (supra) it was found as a matter of feet that the basis for reversion was admitted to be an adverse entry in the character roll of Sughar Singh. In view of such admission it was held that the order of reversion was by way of punishment and amounted to reduction in rank. The above case was considered in Pawan Kumar Dubeys case (supra) by the Supreme Court. While dealing with Sughar Singhs case it was observed as under:— "We have examined the record of the case of Sughar Singh ( AIR 1974 SC 423 ) (supra). Our judgment in the case perhaps does not fully bring out the factual background on which the decision of that case was based.. In that case, the Govt. servant concerned had been suspected of making an alteration in his own service record. It was not shown how he could possibly have had access to his service record as he was not in-charge of the record. One of the alterations made meant an increase in his age so that he would, according to the altered state of the record, have had to retire earlier. Sughar Singh complained, when asked to show cause against the alleged tempering that it must have been manipulated by his enemies interested in injuring him. It could not be determined who was responsi-ble for the alterations. Nevertheless, the following adverse entry was made on Sughar Singhs record : "1966—Is suspected to have got entries of date of birth and educational qualifications altered on the authority of a fictitious certificate which had to be corrected later on Severely warned. It could not be determined who was responsi-ble for the alterations. Nevertheless, the following adverse entry was made on Sughar Singhs record : "1966—Is suspected to have got entries of date of birth and educational qualifications altered on the authority of a fictitious certificate which had to be corrected later on Severely warned. Two years later, as a result of this entry, based expressly on bare suspicion, without further inquiry into the question whether Sughar Singh ( AIR 1974 SC 423 ) could be responsible for tempering with the record, a reversion order, innocuous on the face of it, had been made on 12th August 1968. The effect of the reversion order was that Sughar Singh who apart from this entry, had an excellent record, was reverted from a post in which he had been officiating from 16th March, 1961, until the reversion order dated 12th August, 1968. It was shown that about 200 officers., junior to him, were still officiating in the cadre from which Sughar Singh had been reverted to his substantive post of Head Constable. No administrative need or exigency could be shown to justify the reversion order. All Officers including Sughar Singh, who had been officiating had been selected after special training for the higher cadre. The question naturally arose; Why was Sughar Singh selected for this discriminatory treatment." It was then observed as under : "We do not think that Sughar Singhs case ( AIR 1974 SC 423 ) in any way, conflicts with what has been laid down by this Court, previously on Article 311 (2) of the Constitution or Article 16 of the constitution. We would, however like to emphasize that, before Article 16 is hold to have been violated by some action there must be a clear demonstration of discrimination between one Govt. servant and another, similarly placed, which cannot be reasonably explained except on an assumption or demonstration of "malice in law or "malice in fact." As we have explained, acting on a legally extraneous or obviously misconceived ground of action would be a case of "malice in law". Orders of reversion passed as a result of administrative exigencies, without any suggestion of malice in law or in fact, are unaffected by Sughar Singhs case (supra). They are not vitiated merely because some other Governments, juniors in the substantive rank, have not been reverted." 17. Orders of reversion passed as a result of administrative exigencies, without any suggestion of malice in law or in fact, are unaffected by Sughar Singhs case (supra). They are not vitiated merely because some other Governments, juniors in the substantive rank, have not been reverted." 17. In the present case, the order of reversion of the petitioner has been passed as a result of administrative exigencies, without any malice in law or in fact. In view of these circumstances, merely because some other employees, junior in the substantive rank of Assistant Manager, having not been reverted, cannot be said to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 18. In Amolak Chands case (supra), the order of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Naib Tehsildar to the post of Inspector Land Records was assailed on the ground that the petitioner appellant in that case could not be adjudged unsuitable on the basis of (i) - adverse entries made in Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the years 1977-78, (ii) adverse entries made in Annual Performance Appraisal Reports for the year 1982-83; and (iii) pendency of the departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. It was held that when a particular adverse entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report has material bearing for adjudging the suitability of a person for the purpose of promotion, it cannot be acted upon to deny the promotion to him, until and unless it is communicated to him and an opportunity is afforded to explain it. It was observed in the above case that the adverse entry for the year 1977-78 was not communicated to the petitioner and it was clear from the reply to the stay petition filed on behalf of the respondents that it was taken into consideration to deny the promotional opportunity to the petitioner appellant. It was held that it cannot be acted upon as it was not communicated to the petitioner-appellant and he had no opportunity to explain it. It was also held that the petitioner appellant had been adjudged unsuitable on the basis of the adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1982-83 without decision of the representation submitted by him in regard to it. The above case is thus totally distinguishable and has no relevance at all to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19. The above case is thus totally distinguishable and has no relevance at all to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19. In the result, I find no force in this writ petition and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.