JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal and D.S. Sinha, JJ. - These petitions are directed against the order reverting the petitioners officiating as Sub-Inspectors of Police to the posts of Head Constables and are being taken up in a bunch they were argued together. 2. In the year 1983 there was reversion directed against a large number of officiating Sub-Inspectors of Police (including the petitioners) in exercise of powers under paragraph 191 of the Police Office Manual. The writ petitions filed against the order were dismissed by this Court whereupon the matter was taken in special appeal to the Supreme Court. In the mean time the State Government issued a Government order dated December 1, 1984 which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition No. nil of 1986 (Ram Swarup Sharma v. Inspector General of Police and others) which has been argued as the leading case. Upon the matter coming up before the Supreme Court on April 19, 1985 there was seal of approval put to the aforementioned Government order and the relevant terms thereof were also incorporated in the judgment which read as under :- "4. The said Government order provides as follows:- (a) That the Governor has been pleased to sanction the creation of 1300 supernumerary posts of Civil Police in the pay scale of Rs. 515-860/ - . (b) Appointments on these posts shall be made from amongst all those officiating Sub Inspectors who are liable to be reverted and have crossed the age of 40 years on 30th September, 1984 and whose service records are satisfactory. (c) Only those officiating Sub - Inspectors will be absorbed on these posts who have officiated on the posts of Sub - Inspector for three years or more till 30th September, 1984. (d) Selection of the candidates will be done by a committee nominated by the Government on the basis of service records of the concerned candidates. (e) These 1300 supernumerary posts will be personal and the post and term thereof will expire on retirement of incumbent or termination of his service due to any other reason. (f) No officiating Sub - Inspector promoted under para 191 of the office Manual falling within the above category whether he has approached the Court or not will be reverted before the decision of Selection Committee. If certain Sub-Inspectors falling within the above category have been reverted they may be promoted on the above posts." 3. (f) No officiating Sub - Inspector promoted under para 191 of the office Manual falling within the above category whether he has approached the Court or not will be reverted before the decision of Selection Committee. If certain Sub-Inspectors falling within the above category have been reverted they may be promoted on the above posts." 3. In view of the State Government order the civil appeals were rendered infructuous. In terms of the Government order dated 1st December, 1984 the Governor sanctioned 1300 supernumerary posts. Contention for the petitioners before us is that the petitioners have put in over three years' as officiating Sub - Inspectors till December 30, 1984 and also that they have crossed the age of 40 years on September 30, 1984. The reversion has proceeded on ground as appearing from the orders impugned that the Selection Committee appointed for the purpose did not select the petitioners, 4. Learned counsel urged in the first place that there was no Selection Committee constituted and that the committee which allegedly considered the case of the petitioners had no jurisdiction in this behalf. We find no merit in this submission. Government order dated 1st December, 1984 provides in specific terms that the selection of the candidate will be done by a Committee nominated by the Government on the basis of the service record of the concerned candidate. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition No. Nil of 1986 (Ram Swarup Sharma v. The Inspector General of Police and others) aforementioned we find it stated :- " 9 ;g fd mRrj izns'k 'kklu }kjk inksUufr ik;s mu lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy;s p;u lfefr dh LFkkiuk fd;k vkSj mlds fu;ekoyh dks Hkh cukbZ tks fd fo'ks"k lfpo mRrj izns'k 'kklu ds }kjk 1984 dks 12 twu] 1986 dks tkjh fd;k x;k tks izi= la[;k 1 vkSj 1984 ;kfpdk ds lkFk layXu gSA " Paragraph 15 in in his writ petition states : - " ;g fd rFkk dfFkr p;u lfefr us ofj"V iqfyl vf/k{kd ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd ds fVIi.kh ds vk/kkj ij vkosnd dks vuqi;ZqDr ik;k ftldh lwpuk ,oa vkns'k ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd eSuiqjh dks fnukad 12&6&1986 dks in voufr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tks izi= la[;k 1 vkSj bl ;kfpdk ds lkFk layXu gSA " 5. In face of these averments and allegations to the similar effect made in the connected writ petitions, it is incapable of being accepted that there was no Selection Committee constituted by the State Government. The impugned order dated June 12, 1986 which is Annexure II to the Writ petition filed by Ram Swarup Sharma makes a reference also specifically to the Selection Committee constituted for filling in 1300 supernumerary posts and it states that the said Committee found the petitioner unsuitable. This is made the ground for the impugned reversion. 6. The petitioners did not have a vested right to the post. There is no disability or hardship imposed upon them other than that which is involved in a simple order of reversion This is the test to determine whether the order involves evil consequences (Seervai: Constitutional Law Vol. 11 (3rd Ed,) page 2560). The argument that the order is bad because it says that upon screening by the Committee the petitioner was found unsuitable cannot be sustained. It was held in Union of India v. R.S. Dhaba, (1969) 3 S.C C. 603. that the recital in an order of reversion that the Government Servant was found unsuitable for the officiating post did not amount to putting a stigma on him. 7. The other contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioners were not accorded personal hearing before the Selection Committee This also in our opinion is devoid of substance. Government Order dated 1st December, 1984 constituting the basis for the decision of the Supreme Court provided that the selection of the candidate ill be done by the Selection Committee, "on the basis of service record of tire concerned candidate." No where the State Government Order or the decision of the Supreme Court approving the same provides for personal hearing being as well accorded to the petitioners concerned in the process The argument advanced for the petitioners that the decision of the Committee be taken to record subjective satisfaction alone is unacceptable. There is no foundation laid to infer that the service record of the petitioners or the relevant material in respect thereof was not taken into account by the Selection Committee in screening the officiating Sub - Inspectors of Police. 8. The petitions for these reasons are dismissed summarily.