JUDGMENT Amarendra Nath Varma, J. - The petitioner challenges an order passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, reverting the petitioner from the post of Drafts man to the post of a Tracer. 2. These are the undisputed facts. The petitioner was appointed as a tracer in the Irrigation Department on June 20, 1956. In 1957 the Superintending Engineer VI Circle, Irrigation Department, Lucknow authorised the Executive Engineer, Rae Bareli to hold an examination for the selection of candidates for the post of Draftsman against 7 vacancies. At the said examination the tracers and Assistant Draftsmen working in the department were also allowed to appear. The petitioner passed that examination and was given a letter of appointment promoting him to the post of Draftsman in pursuance of an office memorandum dated December 21, 1957 issued by the Superintending Engineer {vide Annexure 7). The office memorandum stated that the petitioner had been promoted as an officiating Draftsman and was posted at the Mariahu Branch, Construction Division, Jaunpur. The petitioner worked on that post as a Draftsman without any complaint till the year I960 when, as a result of reduction in the number of posts in the Division, he was reverted to his substantive post as a Tracer with effect from 10th October, 1960. In may 1964 a casual vacancy occurred as a result of the promotion of one Wahid Uddin Draftsman to the post of Computer in the leave vacancy of one Musahir Alam Computer against which the Executive Engineer appointed the petitioner or. promotion as a Draftsman with effect from May 16, 1.964. The petitioner continued to work as a Draftroen in pursuance of this order right from 1964 till the date of the impugned reversion. At this point it may be mentioned that in 1967 the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department issued a circular to all Superintending Engineers and Director in the Irrigation Department with regard to the promotion of Tracers/Assistant Draftmen to the post of Draftsmen in the scale of pay of Rs. 100 - 160. This circular stated that the Tracers/Assistant Draftsmen shall be eligible for promotion against 20% posts reserved in the cadre of Draftsmen only if they passed a suitability test prescribed by the Chief Engineer. It further stated that a syllabus for holding the said test had been drawn up an the same was also being sent along with that circular. This circular stated that the Tracers/Assistant Draftsmen shall be eligible for promotion against 20% posts reserved in the cadre of Draftsmen only if they passed a suitability test prescribed by the Chief Engineer. It further stated that a syllabus for holding the said test had been drawn up an the same was also being sent along with that circular. The relevant portion of the syllabus around which the main controversy arising in this petition centres, reads as follows :- "Every tracer and Assistant Draftsman shall have to pass Departmental examination to be conducted from time to time by the examination body, before he can be deemed Sc for promotion to the next higher post draftsman grade III. A person who has already been promoted to the higher post and has put in less than one years of service on the promoted post on the date on enforcement of this examination shall also have to pass the prescribed examination or also he may be reverted." (Emphasis supplied) 3. It appears that in view of the fact that the petitioner had earlier already passer the prescribed departmental examination in the year 1.957 for promotion to the post of Draftsman and had also worked a draftsman pursuant to that promotion as well as the subsequent promotion granted to him against the leave vacancy caused by she promotion of Wahiduddm for more than one year, he did not think it necessary to appear at the examination prescribed by the Chief Engineer.. Consequently when the petitioner was asked to appear at the said examination he protested. However, when specific directions were issued the petitioner did agree to appear at the examination but unfortunately he did not receive any intimation about the dates of the examination. As a result he did not appear at the examination which was held on 2nd and 3rd January, 1970. From the assertions made in the counter affidavit it is apparent that the petitioners failure to appear at the said examination was the sole, basis for his reversion. 4. The petitioner first sought to challenge the order of reversion by way of a civil suit which was, on coming into force of the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act, 1975, transferred to the Tribunal under that Act and was registered as a reference. 4. The petitioner first sought to challenge the order of reversion by way of a civil suit which was, on coming into force of the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act, 1975, transferred to the Tribunal under that Act and was registered as a reference. The Tribunal has, however, dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners appointment as a Draftsman was void and ineffectual in law inasmuch as he was not promoted by the Superintending Engineers who was the authority competent to promote Tracers to the post of Draftsman on a substantive basis. After recording this opinion, the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to go into the further question whether the petitioner was bound under the circular issued by the Chief Engineer to appear at the examination prescribed by the latter. 5. Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended in support of the petition that the view taken by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. Tie further submitted that on a true and proper appreciation of the facts about which there is no controversy it is apparent that the petitioner was not required to appear at the examination prescribed by the Chief Engineer under the circulate issued in 1967. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel, I am clearly of the opinion that both the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded. The fact that the petitioner was promoted as a Draftsman in 1957 and he worked as such till 10th October, 1960 is not disputed. The further fact that the petitioner was granted that permission by the Superintending Engineer who was, on the own showing of the respondents, competent to promote Tracers to the post of Draftsmen against permanent vacancies, is also not disputed. The stand taken in the counter-Affidavit, however, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Draftsmen only on to officiating basis. It is asserted that Ire was merely asked to perform the duties of a draftsman and that he was not promoted as a draftsman on a substantive basis. 7. The stand taken in the counter-Affidavit, however, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Draftsmen only on to officiating basis. It is asserted that Ire was merely asked to perform the duties of a draftsman and that he was not promoted as a draftsman on a substantive basis. 7. Having given the matter a careful consideration, I am clearly of the opinion that the syllabus quoted above implies that a tracer already promoted to the post of draftsman and who had put in more than one years service on the promoted post was not required to appear at the examination prescribed by the Chief Engineer under the aforesaid circular. It is also clear from a plain reading of that syllabus that it was sufficient of the tracer had worked on the higher post of draftsman irrespective of whether his promotion was on a substantive basts or officiating basis. What was perhaps intended to be achieved by making an exception in the case of a draftsman who had put in more than one years service on the promoted post, was the experience granted by a promote as a draftsman for move than one year. Et is undisputed that the petitioner did possess that requisite experience even if his first promotion earned in 1957 was on an officiating basis. The syllabus does not directly or indirectly lay down that only those draftsmen would be except from the examination who had worked as a draftsman on a substantive basis. On the strength of the service recovered by the petitioner as a draftsman from 1957 to 1960 alone therefore, the petitioner was exempt from appearing at the examination prescribed by the Chief Engineer. His failure to appear at the said examination could not hence be a legitimate ground for the reverting the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was being reverted for reasons of inadequacy or inefficiency in work. No other ground has been disclosed in the counter affidavit for reverting the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this Court is entitled to assume that the petitioner has been reverted on the ground disclosed in the counter affidavit, namely, that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, namely, success at the examination prescribed by the Chief Engineer in 1967. 8. No other ground has been disclosed in the counter affidavit for reverting the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this Court is entitled to assume that the petitioner has been reverted on the ground disclosed in the counter affidavit, namely, that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, namely, success at the examination prescribed by the Chief Engineer in 1967. 8. The petitioner, in my opinion, was also entitled to rely on his service as a draftsman from 1967 onwards. The contention raised by the respondents that the petitioner was not so entitled because he was promoted by the Executive Engineer and not by the Superintending Engineer, also does not appear to correct, in the Manual of Orders of the Irrigation Department quoted in paragraph 35 of the petition the powers of the Executive Engineer have been indicated Rule 299 provides that the Executive Engineer is authorised to give temporary promotion in leave vacancies (not exceeding 6 months) in all classes of Divisional Establishment except Engineers, Sub-divisional Officer, D. R. O, Ziledars and Accountants. The Executive Engineer was hence clearly competent to give temporary promotion to the petitioner in the leave vacancy caused by the promotion of Wahiduadin. It is true that he could not grant the promotion for more than six months at a stretch. The assertion of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the vacancy continued ail along. That being so, the promotion granted to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer in 1964 pursuant to which the petitioner continued to work as such right upto the date on which he was reverted, namely, November 1970, could not be ignored or be character as null and void. On the contrary, in my opinion, the promotion granted to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer in 1964 was perfectly valid and the Tribunal is not right in taking a view to the contrary. The petitioner was hence entitled to take into account the period of service as a draftsman from 1964 till 1970 also in support of his claim that he was not required to appear at the aforesaid examination. As regards his promotion in 1957, it is not disputed that he was promoted under an order of the Superintending Engineer. 9. Thus in either view of the matter the petitioners reversion is wholly unsustainable in law and unjustified. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. As regards his promotion in 1957, it is not disputed that he was promoted under an order of the Superintending Engineer. 9. Thus in either view of the matter the petitioners reversion is wholly unsustainable in law and unjustified. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order reverting the petitioner from the post of Draftsman to that of a Tracer vide Annexure-XX to the petition is quashed and the same is declared null and void. The petitioner shall be deemed to have continued as a Draftsman throughout, He shall be entitled to the difference in salary and emoluments which he has been deprived of as a result of the impugned order. The petitioner will also be entitled to his costs from the respondents.