JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - In these three connected writ petitions the main dispute regarding the entitlement to the promotional post of Additional Transport Commissioner (General) in the grade of Rs. 1800-2400 in the Transport Commissioner's Office which exists intact after transfer of entire Commercial wing known as Roadways in the U.P. Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter known as U.P.S.R.T.C. The question is whether the posts of Deputy Transport Commissioner referred to in Government Order, dated 11th September, 1984 from amongst whom the promotion is to be made includes the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) which is a post within the purview of the Public Service Commission unlike the post of other Deputy Transport Commissioners which are promotional posts of Regional Transport Officers. The other question is whether an officer belonging to the wing which as a whole has been transferred to U.P.S.R.T.C. and whether a deputations till final absorption in the said Corporation after getting promotion in Corporation is transferred to an equivalent post within the purview of Public Service Commission temporarily in the Transport Commissioner's Office will amount to termination of deputation and repatriation to parent Department in a wing to which he never belonged. A subsidiary question which also arises in that whether after transfer such an officer is entitled to a higher promotional post in this wing. It is not in dispute that holders of the Office of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) in the Transport Commissioner's Office notwithstanding the nature of their appointment would be and have been appointed to the higher post of Additional General Manager which is equivalent to the post of Additional Transport Commission (General). The appointment to the post of Additional Commissioner (General) is made in accordance with the Government Order, dated 17th September, 1984, copy of which has been annexed to some of the writ petitions. For the appointment of certain posts the following criteria and hierachy has been laid down in the said Government Order. SI. No. Post Eligibility 1. Additional Transport Commissioner. Deputy Transport Commissioner has completed five years service. who 2. Deputy Transport Commissioner. Regional Transport Officer who completed 5 years service. 3. Regional Transport Officer. Assistant Regional Transport Officer who has completed 5 years service. 2. SI. No. Post Eligibility 1. Additional Transport Commissioner. Deputy Transport Commissioner has completed five years service. who 2. Deputy Transport Commissioner. Regional Transport Officer who completed 5 years service. 3. Regional Transport Officer. Assistant Regional Transport Officer who has completed 5 years service. 2. The selection is made for the above three posts in accordance with seniority subject to rejection of unfit and has to be made through the Selection Committee to be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the said Government Order. The channel of promotion indicates that the same is in the executive wing of the Transport Commissioner's Organisation and upto the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner, there appears to be no dispute. So far as this post in question is concerned, according to the petitioner the said Government Order clearly and specifically indicates that the Regional Transport Officer who has been promoted to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner after completion of five years of service as such becomes entitled to the post of Additional Transport Commissioner and this channel of promotion excludes promotion from any other wing of the Transport Commissioner's Officers or any Deputy Transport Commissioner with a suffix like (Technical) does not find place in the Government Order and cannot be imported in it. The post of Additional Transport Commissioner was created in 1977 that is after enforcement of Road Corporation Act in 1972 and conversion of entire commercial wing that is Roadways wing into U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, a statutory Corporation, hereinafter known as U.P.S.R.T.C. by operation of law and the said J.S. Gupta also accepted the same and submitted to it and preferred to remain in service. The employees so transferred were to be treated on deputation with U.P.S.R.T.C. As entire wing stood transferred it was not open for these employees to get their deputation terminated and come back to the Transport Commissioner's organisation. The post which is centre of present dispute fell vacant in 1986 after retirement of one U.K. Singh who was promoted in 1986 and remained in office for few months. The contesting opposite party J.S. Gupta who was even then Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) was not considered for it and did not lay and claim for the paid post. The post which is centre of present dispute fell vacant in 1986 after retirement of one U.K. Singh who was promoted in 1986 and remained in office for few months. The contesting opposite party J.S. Gupta who was even then Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) was not considered for it and did not lay and claim for the paid post. Prior to the appointment of the said U.K. Singh who too rose to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner from the cadre of Regional Transport Officer, his predecessors from the cadre of Regional Transport Officer, his predecessors from the very beginning were selected or appointed wherefrom the very same cadre that is Executive Branch of the Transport Commissioner's Office which remained unaffected by enforcement of Road Transport Corporation Act in 1972. 3. The post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) is a post in Transport Commissioner's organisation and is within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission. In the past that is till the opposite party was not transferred to the said post from U.P.S.R.T.C the incumbents were either those who were selected by Public Service Commission or came on deputation from P.N.D. or U.P.S.R.T.C. The last incumbent to the post before posting of the said J.S. Gupta was one U.C. Sharma who was selected for the post by U.P. Public Service Commission and was declared permanent on the said post on 15-1-1974. He was sent on deputation to U.P.S.R.T.C. for a period of 5 years and there he was promoted to the post of Additional General Manager. It was because the said U.C. Sharma was sent on deputation to U.P.S.R.T.C., the opposite party J.S. Gupta was transferred to Transport Commissioner's Office in his place, which is evident from the order itself which is on record in which the word `Isthantarit' (Transfer) has been used. In Para 6 of his writ petition (No. 1799 of 1984) he has stated that the petitioner was transferred on the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical), Lucknow, on which Mr. U.C. Sharma was working though elsewhere he stated that the same was repatriation to present department. His transfer was obviously by way of interim arrangement as he was neither sent on deputation which was not possible and nor was selected as such by Public Service Commission. U.C. Sharma was working though elsewhere he stated that the same was repatriation to present department. His transfer was obviously by way of interim arrangement as he was neither sent on deputation which was not possible and nor was selected as such by Public Service Commission. Both the posts of Senior Mechanical Engineers held by J.S. Gupta in U.P.S.R.T.C. and that of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) carried the same pay-scale. The Pay Commission subsequently recommended revision in pay scales. The pay scale of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) was revised to Rs. 1540-2200 and that of Senior Mechanical Engineer to Rs. 1490-2150. It is after expiry of period of deputation the said Sri Sharma was directed to join his substantive post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical), after retirement of the said Sri Sharma on 30-9-84 the Government was to filling the said post in the manner prescribed. The opposite party J.S. Gupta was transferred back to U.P.S.R.T.C. whereafter he filed a writ petition challenging the said order (Writ Petition No. 1799 of 1984) From the affidavits on record it emerges that so far as U.P.S.R.T.C. is concerned, the channel of promotion of officers of Engineering side is as follows : 1. Additional General Manager/Chief Mechanical Engineer. 2. Deputy General/Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer. 3. Senior Mechanical Engineer. 4. Assistant Transport Engineer. 4. The posts of Assistant Transport Engineer and that of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer were within the purview of the Public Service Commission and the pay-scale of both was the same, though they belonged to different cadres. The Assistant Regional Transport Officers belonged to Executive Branch and Assistant Engineers to Traffic Branch, i.e., Commercial Branch. It appears that the rank of Additional General Manager in U.P.S.R.T.C. is equal to that of Additional Transport Commissioner in Transport Commissioner's Branch. As a revision of pay-scales by the Pay Commission, the pay-scale of former is little higher than the later, though earlier it was the same. 5. The State Government vide D.O. No. 2668-A-XXX, dated 16th August, 1966 divided qualified service personnel in the Transport Organisation in three broad divisions. 1. Administrative and Direction Branch. 2. Roadways and Roadways Central Workshop Service. 3. Tourist Service. 5. The State Government vide D.O. No. 2668-A-XXX, dated 16th August, 1966 divided qualified service personnel in the Transport Organisation in three broad divisions. 1. Administrative and Direction Branch. 2. Roadways and Roadways Central Workshop Service. 3. Tourist Service. The said D.O. specifically provided that there will be no inter-changeability in personnel between service of Administrative, that is, Executive Branch and those of Roadways and Roadways Central Workshop except by way of officers being obtained, if necessary, on deputation. The expenditure of Administrative i.e., Executive Branch is met under the Head "A Direction," while that of Roadways, that is, commercial Branch is met from the Head "Operation of Bus Service". The third Branch that is "Tourist Branch" stood abolished after formation of Tourist Department of State of U.P. Another D.O was issued by the State Government on 20th August, 1963 (D.O. No. 2797-A-II-XXX-113 M-62) which pertained to the appointment of Passenger Tickets Superintendent and Tax Superintendent in which it was specifically provided that the promotion for these posts will, however, be made from amongst the staff in the non-roadways Branch of the Transport Organization. It was further mentioned therein that the staff of the Roadways Branch should be kept separate from non-roadways branches of the Transport Offices. Moreover, it would be fair to give them a change of promotion against the post created to the administrative and organisation branches. The D.O. of 1962 is very clear and it provides that interchangeability will not be possible between these two groups except by way of deputation. The said D.O. came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in a writ petition D.N. Shah v. M.L. Mehrotra and others, Special Appeal No. 144 of 1970, decided on 1-11-74, although at places the word G.O. has been mentioned which appears to be only a clerical error. In the said case dispute was regarding fixing of seniority of Stenographers working in the Administrative and Direct side under Deputy Transport Commissioner (A. and D. Branch) and those belonging to the cadre of stenographers working under the Transport Commissioner (Roadways Branch). In the said case dispute was regarding fixing of seniority of Stenographers working in the Administrative and Direct side under Deputy Transport Commissioner (A. and D. Branch) and those belonging to the cadre of stenographers working under the Transport Commissioner (Roadways Branch). It was held that it is obvious that the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Roadways) and the staff pertaining to his office was not permanently absorbed with the Administrative or Organisation Branch and that the decision of the Government that there will be no interchangeability or personnel in between the various units unless the said executive instruction of abrogation in exercise of powers under Article 309 was bound to be followed by the administrative authorities and the G.O. of 1963 only retreated the prohibition of interchangeability of these units. 5. The petitioner to Writ Petition No. 823 of 1987 - V.B. Khare v. State of U.P. and others, which is being treated as the leading case, V.B. Khare was appointed as Assistant Transport Officer after having qualified the combined State Service Examination held in the year 1955. He was appointed on 2-1-1956. The petitioners to Writ Petition No. 902 of 1987, O.S. Gahlot and Ram Adhar Pandey were appointed in the year 1967 while J.S. Gupta who is opposite-party to this writ petition and petitioner to Writ Petition No. 1799 of 1984 were selected as Assistant Engineers by the Public Service Commission in the year 1960. Thus petitioner V.B. Khare so far as service is senior to all these petitioners. It is not in dispute that for the first-time promotion or appointment to post of Additional Transport Commissioner (General) has been made though temporarily from a cadre outside the cadre of Regional Transport Officer for the time being by the posting of opposite-party J.S. Gupta who initially also belonged to the commercial wing i.e., Roadways wing and had been posted as such in February, 1987 which posting is because of ex parte interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by him against his transfer back to U.P. State Road Transport Corporation to which till then none of the claimants was part. 6. 6. The petitioner V.B. Khare was promoted to the post of Regional Transport Office in the year 1981 while opposite-party J.S. Gupta was promoted to the next higher post of Service Manager Class-1 on 22-3-1965, a post belonging to commercial wing of U.P. Government Roadways and after becoming employee of U.P.S.R.T.C. like others on deputation, he was promoted to the post of senior Mechanical Engineer on ad hoc basis vide order, dated 5-5-78 by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, a promotion which was accepted of him. The said appointment order clearly mentions that his service condition will be in accordance with the regulations which will be framed by the Corporation and he can be reverted (Pritivartit) at any time. The meaning of the word `Pritiavartit' means reversion and not repatriation as translated by the said J.S. Gupta. The said translation also does not fit in the context the same is being used as the word finds place in his promotion order and not in the transfer order or deputation order. The opposite-party J.S. Gupta while working in U.P.S.R.T.C. was confirmed on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 1960 though on the post on which he was made permanent vide G. O. dated 1-12-82, copy of which has been placed on the record of the writ petition. The said J.S. Gupta has filed copy of the said G. O. in these petitions and in very petition the date of G. O. has been typed as 8-12-62 and 8-12-82. and apparently the same has been done deliberately and in his writ petition or counter-affidavit or affidavit he has stated that the post was made permanent in 1982. By filing false affidavit and changing the date in the G.O. it seems he has made effort to get a judicial order in his favour which according to the petitioner is correct copy of the G.O. It was stated on his behalf that typing mistake was crept in the copy which was filed by him. The affidavits filed by him still contain these assertions. By making false assertion a person dis-entitled himself from claiming discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The affidavits filed by him still contain these assertions. By making false assertion a person dis-entitled himself from claiming discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. After transfer of entire commercial wing of the Transport Organization that is Roadways in the State Road Transport Corporation under the Chairman of the Corporation, the other wing i.e, executive wing continued to remain under the control of the Transport Commissioner. Pending final absorption and framing the Rules in this behalf the officers of the said wing were to be treated on deputation. After acceptance of promotion on a higher post in U.P.S.R.T.C. the said J.S. Gupta also become entitled to the post of Transport Commissioner (Technical) in Transport Commissioner's Branch. The nomenclature of this post indicates that it pertains to Traffic, that is, Roadways or the Commercial side which needs technical hands too. For some reason may be the technical advice and guidance such a post was maintained in Transport Commissioner's office, the incumbents to which post could get a higher post equivalent to Additional Transport Commissioner in U.P.S.R.T.C. The question is that even then could it be said to be a post in the cadre of Regional Transport Officers. The question is whether the cadre of the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) also is the same as that of Deputy Transport Commissioner, a promotional post in the Regional Transport Officers cadre when the former one is a post which requires technical qualifications and the later one is promotional post from amongst the Regional Transport Officers who have completed 5 years of service as such. The word `cadre' is defined in Fundamental Rule 9 (4) contained in Financial Handbook Vols. II to IV and the same reads as under:- "Cadre" means the strength of service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit." The petitioners have asserted that the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) is an ex-cadre post while the opposite-party J.S. Gupta refuting this averment has not stated any where that this post is also a sanctioned post or a post in the Transport Office which also includes the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner. There is also no averment that the State Government has issued any notification or declaration in this behalf. There is also no averment that the State Government has issued any notification or declaration in this behalf. The post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) is not available to the Transport Officers' unit as member of that unit by way of promotion or otherwise. The single, member post of Deputy Transport Commissioner is obviously an ex-cadre post. 8. So long as the deputation of the officials of erstwhile entire Roadways wing consisting of U.P.S.R.T.C. does not come to an end and they are finally absorbed in it in respect of which rules too have been framed, the said J.S. Gupta obviously holds a lien on the post of Assistant Engineer on which he was confirmed in 1984 with retrospective effect. He never held any intermediate post that is post between Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) and Assistant Engineer in Transport Commissioner's Branch. The confirmation to the post of Assistant Engineer took place years after the said J.S. Gupta made a representation to the Secretary Transport Authority on 16-4-1979. Against the order transferring him back to U.P.S.R.T.C. he preferred a writ petition before this Court (writ petition No. 1799 of 1984) and this Court passed an interim order on 4-4-79 staying operation of the said order as well as the earlier order, dated 31st May, 1984 by which the said J.S. Gupta was ordered to be reverted back to the U P. State Road Transport Corporation from where he was transferred on 23rd March, 1979 to the Transport Commissioner's office in place of said U.C. Sharma. 9. The result of the interim order passed in the writ petition filed by the said J.S. Gupta was that he continued to hold the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) though not selected for the said post by Public Service Commission. In the said writ petition he moved another application for being considered for the promotional and vacant post of the Additional Transport Commissioner on 27th June, 1966 and this Court passed an ex parte order for consideration of his name also for said post in the selection subject to the final order passed in the writ petition. Till then there was no private party to the said writ petition and it was after the said interim order the said V.B. Khare, petitioner to writ petition No. 823 of 1987 got himself impleaded as party to it. Till then there was no private party to the said writ petition and it was after the said interim order the said V.B. Khare, petitioner to writ petition No. 823 of 1987 got himself impleaded as party to it. In view of the interim order of this Court, the departmental promotional committee considered the case of J.S. Gupta for post of Additional Transport Commissioner taking him to be eligible like another Deputy Transport Commissioner and selected him which led to the filing of Writ Petition No. 823 of 1987 and Writ Petition No. 902 of 1987. 10. So far as petitioners to Writ Petition No. 902 of 1987 are concerned it appears that they were promoted to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner in the year 1983 and are yet to complete 5 years terms. So far as petitioner V.B. Khare (Petitioner to W.P. No. 823 of 1987) is concerned he had completed five years of service as Deputy Transport Commissioner when the selection to the post took place in the service hierarchy he having been appointed in 1956, he is senior to opposite-party J.S. Gupta who joined the Department in the year 1960 in the cadre of Assistant Transport Engineer, the rank and grade of which was similar to that of Assistant Regional Transport Officer. It is true that opposite-party J.S. Gupta was transferred back on the equivalent post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) in the Transport Commissioner's office but he could get this post in view of his promotion to the equivalent post of Mechanical Engineer from the post of Service Engineer in the U.P.S.R.T.C. After acceptance of ad hoc promotion in U.P.S.R.T.C. with the condition that his services will be governed by Regulations framed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. For practical purposes, he treated himself to be full-fledged employee of the Corporation. Even otherwise it was not possible for him or any other deputations to put an end to the deputation and come back to the Transport Organization. Even otherwise it was not possible for him or any other deputations to put an end to the deputation and come back to the Transport Organization. His transfer to U.P.S.R.T.C. by operation of law, like all the other officials of Roadways wing as deputationist who were awaiting their final absorption after framing of U.P. State Roadways Organisation Abolition of posts and absorption of Employees Rules, the enforcement of which Rule is under stay in view of the interim orders passed by this Court in another writ petition and as provided in the Rules he not having conveyed to the Secretary Transport Department, U.P. Government any desire of not being absorbed in U.P.S.R.T.C. and thereby face its consequences, again to U.P.S.R.T.C. was not illegal and permissible and does not offend even any Fundamental Rule. The transfer order no where provided that in the U.P.S.R.T.C., where he got an ad hoc promotion, he will be given a lower rank. If subsequently the pay-scale of the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) in Transport Commissioner's branch was raised little higher than that of the Senior Mechanical Engineer in U.P.S.R.T.C. from which post he came to the Transport Organisation for interim period the same too would not amount to reduction in rank or invalidate his transfer. The said J.S. Gupta cannot claim the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) or stay it indefinitely as his appointment to the post which is within the purview of Public Service Commission was a temporary arrangement. He is being only sent back to the Corporation, where by operation of law he had to go, failing which he would have lost his service. 11. In view of the above the writ petition filed by J.S. Gupta (W. P. No. 1799 of 1984) deserves to be dismissed. 12. The functions and duties of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Executive Branch, and that of the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) differ. The Deputy Transport Commissioner performs the duties of Registration Officer, Licensing Authority, Taxation Authority, the Secretary Regional Transport Authority and the Appellate Authority exercise quasi judicial power. None of these duties are performed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) whose duties are with regard to the Technical matters and a Deputy Transport Commissioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Additional General Manager/Chief Mechanical Engineer and none of the posts are open for a Deputy Transport Commissioner, (Executive Branch). 13. None of these duties are performed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) whose duties are with regard to the Technical matters and a Deputy Transport Commissioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Additional General Manager/Chief Mechanical Engineer and none of the posts are open for a Deputy Transport Commissioner, (Executive Branch). 13. It is not the consistent practice followed by the Transport Department, but from the State Government Order, dated 17th September, 1984, itself which is being interpreted by the parties differently, it is clear that it is the last promotional post in the cadre of Assistant Regional Transport Officers. (The context shows that Deputy Transport Commissioner would be one who had completed 5 years of service as Regional Transport Officer. No prefix or suffix like any or technical has been used before or after the words `Deputy Transport Commissioner'. The mode of selection that is seniority subject to rejection of unfit makes it still more clear. The Deputy Transport Commissioners Executive and Technical do not form one cadre. The Deputy Transport Commissioner (Executive) is a promotional post in a chain while the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner (Technical) is a technical post requiring special qualification and filled in by direct selection. Even otherwise admittedly he belongs to commercial wing that is Roadways wing which has been transferred to U.P.S.R.T.C. The Post of Additional Transport Commissioner is a post in the Executive wing, that is, the Transport Commissioner's office. In view of the D.O. No. 2668-A-2 XXX, dated 16th August, 1966, and the D.O. No. 2797-A-11-XXX-62-M 62 and D. N Shah's case (supra) interchangeability in there two wings is not permissible, as such the said J.S. Gupta despite his holding the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner temporarily without any right to the post is not entitled to higher post in the Executive wing, that is, the post of Additional Transport Commissioner. In the view the said J.S. Gupta is not eligible for the post of Additional Transport Commissioner. 14. Writ Petition No. 1799 of 1984 is accordingly dismissed the interim order is discharged. 15. Writ Petition No. 823 of 1987 is allowed and the order dated 8-2-1987 promoting the said J.S. Gupta to the post of Additional Transport Commissioner is quashed. In the view the said J.S. Gupta is not eligible for the post of Additional Transport Commissioner. 14. Writ Petition No. 1799 of 1984 is accordingly dismissed the interim order is discharged. 15. Writ Petition No. 823 of 1987 is allowed and the order dated 8-2-1987 promoting the said J.S. Gupta to the post of Additional Transport Commissioner is quashed. The opposite-parties viz, the State Government and the Transport Commissioner, U.P., are directed to make selection for the post of Additional Transport Commissioner from amongst the Deputy Transport Commissioners who are from the cadre of Assistant Regional Transport Officers that is, Transport Officers, expeditiously, say within 6 weeks. Till then the said opposite-parties may make any other interim arrangement from amongst those who are eligible tor the same. 16. Writ Petition No. 902 of 1987 is allowed in part and the Chairman, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is directed to appoint opposite-party J.S. Gupta to an appropriate post without delay. The entire selection proceedings regarding the said J.S. Gupta are quashed. 17. Parties will bear their own costs in these petitions.