JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Petitioner who was working as a Headmaster of Basic Training School in Senior Subordinate Education Service with effect from 15-6-1963 was promoted to the next higher post in Class-II, Orissa Education Service on 7-11-1973 on ad hoc basis pending concurrence of the Public Service Commission. Subsequently, the Petitioner was posted as Headmaster, Secondary Training School, Polosora for a period of six months or till the appointment is made on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission whichever is earlier and the Petitioner joined the said post on 12-2-1974. These orders of promotion of the Petitioner to Class-II Orissa Education Service are annexed as Annexures 1 and 3 to the writ petition. Subsequently, under Annexure-4, the ad hoc promotion of opposite parties 3 to 8 was regularised though they are juniors to the Petitioner, but the Petitioner continued in the promotional post on ad hoc basis. The Petitioner asserts that the Public Service Commission as well as the Government did not follow the appropriate criteria fixed for promotion which has resulted in the supersession of the Petitioner by opposite parties 3 to 8. Petitioner, therefore, filed several representations but did not get any relief. Again, opposite parties 9 to 50 were also promoted on regular basis by order dated 31-5-1978, yet the Petitioner was not so promoted and ultimately the impugned order of reversion of the Petitioner emanated as per Annexure-16. In the premises, the Petitioner prays to quash the order of reversion as per Annexure-16 and also to quash the regular promotion of opposite parties 3 to 50 to the Orissa Education Service, Class-II. 2. The stand of the State Government in the counter affidavit filed is to the effect that the Petitioner's case along with the cases of his juniors was forwarded to the Orissa Public Service Commission under Government Letter dated 30-4-1973, annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, but the Public Service Commission while sending its recomendation did not recommend the Petitioner's name. Notwithstanding the absence of recommendation in favour of the Petitioner, the Government allowed the Petitioner to continue in the Class-II post and again sent Petitioner's name along with a fresh batch of cases for promotion to Class-II, Orissa Education Service, to the Orissa Public Service Commission by Government letter dated 3-2-1976 annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Notwithstanding the absence of recommendation in favour of the Petitioner, the Government allowed the Petitioner to continue in the Class-II post and again sent Petitioner's name along with a fresh batch of cases for promotion to Class-II, Orissa Education Service, to the Orissa Public Service Commission by Government letter dated 3-2-1976 annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The Commission's recommendation on this was received by the State Government in two lots, on 11-11-1977 and 19-1-1978, but unfortunately, the Commission did not concur to the promotion of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner has been reverted to his substantive post in Senior Subordinate Education Service. Thus, according to the stand of the State Government, the impugned order of reversion under Annexure-16 is on account of non-concurrence to the Petitioner's case for promotion by the Orissa Public Service Commission and, therefore, no illegality has been committed in passing the order of reversion. 3. Mr. Misra appearing for the Petitioner strenuously urges that the promotion to Class-II, Orissa Education Service, is governed by the statutory rules called the Orissa Education Service, Class-II (Recruitment to the School Branch) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), Rules 16 and 17 of the said Rules read together would indicate that the basis of promotion is seniority-cum-merit and since there is no adverse entry in the Confidential Character Roll of the Petitioner he could not have been superseded by his juniors. According to Mr. Misra the Public Service Commission did not follow the criteria for promotion as contained in Rules 16 and 17 and since there has been an infraction of the said Rules while considering the case of promotion, the recommendation of the Public Service Commission is illegal. It is further urged that since the order of reversion has emanated because of non-recommendation by the Public Service Commission and since the non-recommendation is illegal the order of reversion is liable to be quashed. 4. I do not find any substance in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is further urged that since the order of reversion has emanated because of non-recommendation by the Public Service Commission and since the non-recommendation is illegal the order of reversion is liable to be quashed. 4. I do not find any substance in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The promotion of the Petitioner to Class-II Orissa Education Service was on ad hoc basis in the exigencies of public service without following the statutory rules for promotion and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot be said to have a right to the post in Class-II, Orissa Education Service to which he had been promoted on ad hoc basis pending consideration of his case by the Orissa Public Service Commission in accordance with the Rules. Rules 16 and 17 stipulate that the Selection Committee will draw up a list of eligible candidates for promotion and arrange the list in order of their seniority in their parent service. It is also open to the Selection Committee to give higher placement to a junior person in the list who in their opinion is of exceptional merit and suitable. The list will then be referred to the Public Service Commission along with the persons who have not been selected by the Selection Committee and then the Commission shall consider the cases of all persons along with the documents and records received from the Government and recommend a list of candidates arranging their names is accordance with their inter se seniority in their parent service. The proviso to Rule 17 also authorises the Commission to put a junior officer at a higher place provided the Commission is of the opinion that he is of exceptional merit. Thus, in my opinion, the Rule contemplate that if the Commission finds a person suitable and includes him in the list of selected persons, then ordinarily he must be placed in accordance with his inter se seniority, but if the Commission does not find a person suitable there is no question of putting the person in the list merely on the basis of his seniority. In other words, seniority is not the sole criterion for promotion. In other words, seniority is not the sole criterion for promotion. That apart, the Orissa Public Service Commission has not been made a party to this case and I am, therefore, not in a position to appreciate the contention of the Petitioner that proper criteria for selection were not followed by the Commission. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there has been no infraction of the statutory rules while sending the recommendation by the Commission and the Petitioner's contention is devoid of substance. I would accordingly dismiss the writ application as being devoid of merits, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. 5. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, points out that by an interim order of this Court dated 20-2-1979, the Petitioner was continued to remain in transit till Tuesday next and this direction was continued even by another order dated 1-3-1979. This order was varied only by order No. 7 dated 28-11-1979, wherein it has been clarified that it was open to the State Government to give an appointment to the Petitioner and it was open to the Petitioner to accept the same. Subsequently, the Petitioner has joined the post. Mr. Misra contends that the Petitioner must be given the benefits of pay provided for a Class-II Government servant for the period while he was allowed to continue in transit under order of this Court. I find it difficult to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is too well-known that a Government gets transit to enable him to join his new post on transfer. I am, therefore, not in a position to direct the Government to allow the Petitioner salary in a Class-II post for the period for which he was allowed to remain transit by interim order of this Court. I would, however, make it clear that it is open for the State Government to decide as to how the period in question will be adjusted appropriately in accordance with the Rules bearing in mind, of course, the fact that the Petitioner was permitted to continue on transit by interim order of this Court. H.L. Agrawal, C.J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed