Saikia, C. J. — Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.C. Kataki. Heard also Mr. P. Prasad, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam. The petitioners came before this Court earlier in Civil Rule Nos. 8 tl and 842 of 1986. By our order dated 31.8.87 we disposed of the petition in Civil Rule No. 841/86 with the following observation and directions : “From the above mentioned list it appears that, the petitioner's name figures at SI. No. 22. The petitioner having been appointed as Assistant Inspector of Schools under Regulation 3(f) of the Regulation his appointment was required to be regularised by the A.P.S.C. ; and having already appeared in the interview and having been selected by the A.P.S.C. now the question of regularisation of his appointment is to be taken up. In case he is appointed by virtue of his position in the selection list, the question of his reversion would not arise. However, in case he is not appointed there shall be no bar to his being reverted to his substantive post of Subject teacher of Dakhinpat Higher Secondary School, Nagaon. There is, therefore, no bar on the part of the respondents in “ giving effect to the selection list in no far as the petitioner is concerned.” Similar order was passed in Civil Rule No. 842/86. Admittedly the position of the petitioner No. 1, Shri Premeswar Das, was 22nd and the position of petitioner No.2, Shri Nityananda Gogoi, was 21st. The petitioners' grievance in this petition is that their appointment as Assistant Inspectors of Schools made under Regulation 3 (f) has not been regularised. 2. Mr. P, C. Kataki, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners having been direct recruits appointed under Regulation (f), there could be no question of their reversion to the post o Subject teachers. Mr. Kataki categorically submits that the petitioners could be discharged but not reverted, inasmuch as they were not departmental protnotees but appointed under Regulation 3 (f). This submission was not made when the earlier Civil Rules were disposed of. 3. Regulation 3 (f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 is to the following effect. “3. Mr. Kataki categorically submits that the petitioners could be discharged but not reverted, inasmuch as they were not departmental protnotees but appointed under Regulation 3 (f). This submission was not made when the earlier Civil Rules were disposed of. 3. Regulation 3 (f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 is to the following effect. “3. It shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted in matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and posts or the suitability of the candidates for such appointments, in the following cases, namely:- (f) when an appointment is to be made by direct recruitment to a temporary post created in a service, if it is necessary in the public interest that the appointment should be made immediately and reference to the Commission would cause undue delay; provided that if the post has been sanctioned for, is likely to last for more than four months, the Commission shall, as be consulted in all matter mentioned sub-clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution.” Mr. Kataki does not deny that the A.P.S.C. was to be consulted and it has accordingly been consulted. In the selection list the petitioners' name having been included at SI. Nos. 22 and 21 respectively, a question shall arise as to whether that would be enough for regularisa-tion of their appointment or if their positions did not entitle them to the post what consequence would follow. 4. Mr. Prasad submits that the State Government has filled up all the vacancies that occurred during the period of the select list, which, according to him, expired on 11.11.87 and that no further vacant post exists for appointment of the petitioners. Mr. Kataki clearly states that he is not aware of the number of vacancies and be is also not in a position either to admit or to deny the statement. Mr. Kataki submits that even if that be so, the petitioners could not be reverted as they were not promotees and that they could be discharged but the Government has chosen not to discharge them but to revert them. It is, however, not denied that the petitioners were subject teachers in their respective schools prior to their appointment under Regulation 3(f). In our earlier orders we observed that in case the petitioners were not regularised there would be no bar to their reversion. It is, however, not denied that the petitioners were subject teachers in their respective schools prior to their appointment under Regulation 3(f). In our earlier orders we observed that in case the petitioners were not regularised there would be no bar to their reversion. That observation was made keeping in view the admission of the petitioners that they were subject teachers at the time of their appointment under Regulation 3(f). The petitioners' categorical submission is that they could be dealt with in accordance with Regulation 3(f) and that being direct recruits they should not have been reverted. 5. Mr. Kataki relies on Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1987 SC 1627 . In that case the appellant was served with an order reverting him to the post of primary teacher. He challenged the order on the ground that he was a direct recruit to the post of Assistant Deputy Educational Inspector (A.D.E.I.) and that under the circumstances, there was no question of reverting him to the lower post of a 'primary teacher'. He filed a civil suit. The trial court upheld the contention of the appellant and passed a decree in his favour granting a declaration that he continued in service on the premise that the impugned order reverting him from the post of A.D.E.I. held by him, to the lower post of a primary teacher was illegal. The trial court also passed a decree for the salary amount. The State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal to the High Court of Bombay, which allowed the appeal, reversed and set aside the decree passed by the trial court, and dismissed the suit. Thereupon the appellant approached the Supreme Court under Article 13 (l)(b) of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that before the High Court it was conceded by the learned Government Pleader that the appellant was appointed to the post of A.D.E.I. as a 'direct recruit and that he was not a departmental promotee who had been promoted from the post of primary teacher to the post of A.D.E.I. and that this was abundantly clear from the following passage extracted from the judgment of the High Court : “Before us the learned Government Pleader conceded that the appointment of the Plaintiff as A.D.E.I. appears to be a direct appointment and not a matter of departmental promotion. He may be ineligible in terms of requisite departmental service as a teacher, but he had the educational qualifications required for the post and he had directly applied for the post, though the application had to come through proper channel in view of the fact that the plaintiff was in service.” In view of this concession, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed, the High Court should have straightway dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court further observed : “A direct recruit to a post, it cannot be gainsaid, cannot be reverted to a lower post. It is only a promotee who can be reverted from the promotion post to the lower post from which he was promoted. These propositions are so elementary that the same are incapable of being disputed and have not been disputed.” The High Court's view was held to be unsustainable in law as there was no escape from the conclusion reached by the trial court. We are, however, of the view that while making appointments under Regulation 3 (f) there is no bar in appointing a person already in service and in case his appointment is not regularised, in his returning to his substantive post if rules permit. Such return would follow as consequence and not for any reversion order. 6. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioners were appointed -under Regulation 3 (f) and in that sense they were direct appointees under that Regulation. It is not denied that they were subject teachers prior to their appointment under Regulation 3 (f). The Government took into consideration the fact that they were earlier subject t teachers of their respective schools. Mr. Kataki has no instruction as to whether they retained their liens in their posts of subject teachers in their schools. Under the above circumstances (the impugned notification dated 8th December, 1987 reverting the petitioners to their respective original substantive posts of Assistant Teachers in their respective schools cannot be sustained, and hence, it is set aside in so far as it relates to the petitioners. This is being done as is being insisted by Mr. Kataki. It will now be open to be State Government to pass orders in accordance with law. It will also be open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies if they are still aggrieved by the orders passed by the State Government. This is being done as is being insisted by Mr. Kataki. It will now be open to be State Government to pass orders in accordance with law. It will also be open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies if they are still aggrieved by the orders passed by the State Government. We also make it clear that there shall be no bar on the part of the petitioners to return to their substantive posts if they are so advised and if the law permit. 7. With the above observations and directions this petition is disposed of.