K. M. YUSUF, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the Writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioners joined the Public Works Department in the scale of Rs. 135/- to Rs. 180/- in the year 1973. Thereafter they were directed to be promoted to the post of work Assistant under Work Charged Establishment in the Scale of Rs. 300-10-400-15-565-20-665/- plus usual allowances and were posted by office order issued from Midnapure being No. 295 dated 21st December, 1985. They came to know that the said order of promotion was directed to be kept in abeyance until further orders vide order dated 6th January, 1986 issued by Respondent No. 4. Thereafter the order of keeping the promotion in abeyance was withdrawn and the petitioners were directed to be released from the present post and to report as Work Assistants in the new place of posting by order dated 8th January, 1986 and they joined the promotional post of Work Assistants. Again recently the petitioners came to know that the promotion order has been cancelled by order dated 21st March, 1986 issued by Respondent No. 2. The petitioners have come to know that the petitioner's are going to be reverted to the previous posts under Group-D without any reason in a most arbitrary and malafide way. The orders have not yet been served but are expected to be served and already have been issued on 19th April, 1986 by Respondent No. 4 pursuant to the order dated 21st March, 1986. It is stated by the petitioners that reversion from a substantive post of promotion to a lower post without giving the petitioners any reasonable opportunity of being heard and without assigning any reasonable cause is just high-handedness and violative of the principles of natural justice and equity and is a penal consequence as well as the stigma in their service career. There was no disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioners and they were not served with any show cause notice. Hence the writ petition for commanding the respondents not to give effect to the order of cancellation of the promotion dated 21st March, 1986 and not to enforce the same by order dated 19th April, 1986. The Hon'ble Court granted an interim order of status quo on 7th May, 1986. Hence the writ petition for commanding the respondents not to give effect to the order of cancellation of the promotion dated 21st March, 1986 and not to enforce the same by order dated 19th April, 1986. The Hon'ble Court granted an interim order of status quo on 7th May, 1986. ( 3 ) THE respondents by an Affidavit-in-opposition contested the Writ petitions and stated that promotion policy was laid down on the basis of the graduation list of qualified Group-D Staff and the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Work Assistant on seniority basis. Due to the sudden spurt in the constructional activities and simultaneously launching of a number of schemes under 7th Five-Year Plan the circle was in the dire need of some additional number of Work Assistants. But by imposition of an embargo upon the recruitment of L. D. Assistant the promotional prospect of qualified Group 'd' Staff was diminished. It contended that the work of Work Assistant under Work Charged Establishment was temporary and the petitioners were never promoted on substantive basis and therefore the promotional order issued earlier was cancelled and all the promotees including the petitioners were directed to be reverted to their original posts. It was further contended that by virtue of order dated 18th July, 1964 if any order was issued and was afterwards detected not to have been issued as per Government Order, the authority has the right to cancel the same. When reversion is made on administrative ground the question of framing show cause of charges do not arise and there is no violation of natural justice. ( 4 ) IT appears from the appointment memo dated 21st December 1985 issued by the Superintending Engineer (P. W. D.), South Western Circle, Midnapure, respondent No. 4, that the petitioners were Group 'd' Staff under the South Western, Circle working as Peon and Mazdoor, respectively and they were promoted to the posts of Work Assistant not on a temporary basis but as permanent hands and by another memo dated 8th January, 1986 issued by the Executive Engineer (P. W. D.), Midnapure Division No. II, they were posted at different places within the Sub-Division. On 9th January, 1986, the Assistant Engineer (P. W. D.), Kharagpur Sub-Division, released them to join the new promotional Posts as Work Assistant and on 9th January, 1986 i. e. the very same day they did join their respective offices as work Assistant in the forenoon. Thereafter came the impugned Memo dated 21st March, 1986 and 14th April, 1986 issued by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, reverting them to their former position as Peon and Mazdoor, respectively. ( 5 ) THE State has taken a strong defence by enclosing the Gradation List of 'd' Group employees under south-western Circle, Midnapure, eligible for promotion to the post of Group 'c' in terms of the promotion policy of the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department, dated 5th. August 1981. Clause II of the said promotion policy states that the scope for advancement was being significantly expanded at the Group 'c' and 'd' level too and seniority and satisfactory open performance report would be the criteria of such promotion. It. further states that it had been decided that the prospects for advancement would be further enlarged for the lower grade employees. The said chart of the Gradation List as referred to hereinbefore contains the names of the petitioners at serial Nos. 4 and 8 showing their date of entry into cadre on 12th March, 1973 and 5th January, 1979 respectively. The defence is that the imposition of an embargo upon the recruitment of L. D. Assistant by the Superintending Engineer under the Memo of 20th December, 1985 diminished the promotional prospect of Group 'd' staff and it stood in the way of the Government Order of promotion policy of 5th August, 1981. The imposition of an embargo might be a temporary phase but it could not continue indefinitely and an order of embargo issued by a Superintending Engineer cannot override the policy decision on promotion. ( 6 ) THE contention of the State that the appointment of the petitioners were temporary in nature and never substantive also does not hold good because the memos of appointment as referred to above do not indicate ill any way that they are promoted on a temporary basis. Any communication made by the Government which is against the principle of natural justice cannot and must not stand in the way of promotion of the petitioners. Any communication made by the Government which is against the principle of natural justice cannot and must not stand in the way of promotion of the petitioners. I cannot agree with the contents of the Memo dated 21st March, 1986 written by the Chief Engineer (P. W. D.) to the Superintending Engineer (P. W. D.) South Western Circle, as this decision was taken after the substantive appointment of the petitioners by Memo dated 21st February, 1985 Though the promotion policy was formulated in 1981 but merely on the plea that wrong promotions were given, the already granted promotion cannot be taken away. The cancellation of erroneous appointments/confirmations/promotions of Government servants issued under Memorandum No 3741 dated 18th July, 1964 indicates that in those cases where the appointments/confirmations/promotions of certain employees who were not qualified in all respects for such appointments/confirmations/promotions under the relevant statutory rules, executive orders or administrative instructions and had the effect of depriving or of posting appointments/confirmations/promotion's of other employees who were qualified in all respects might be cancelled by the competent authority straight way as ab initio void and ultra vires of the relevant rules. These principles would also apply if such order or notification or promotion or appointment of a Government servant has resulted from a factual error and the Government servant concerned on cancellation would be brought back to the position which he would be held but for the incorrect order. In the said Memorandum No. 3741 Clause 3 thereof says that all cases of errors, appointments and confirmation should be viewed with serious concern and suitable disciplinary action should be taken against the officers and staff responsible for such erroneous order. Let me make it clear that the defence had nowhere pointed out that the petitioners concerned were not qualified in all respects for appointment as Work Assistants but simply harped upon the fact that the appointment as Work Assistant was temporary in nature and they were not posted substantively and there was an embargo upon the recruitment of L. D. Assistant and as such the promotion granted had been cancelled. By order dated 6th January, 1986 the Respondent No. 4 kept the order of promotion of the petitioners in abeyance but afterwards withdrawn the same. This indicates that the petitioners records must have been verified and scrutinised by the Respondents and then green signal was given. By order dated 6th January, 1986 the Respondent No. 4 kept the order of promotion of the petitioners in abeyance but afterwards withdrawn the same. This indicates that the petitioners records must have been verified and scrutinised by the Respondents and then green signal was given. The Court rejects the contentions of the State in the circumstances. ( 7 ) WHATEVER the respondents have done they have done against the principles of natural justice and after giving the petitioners promotion on permanent basis they are taking the most unreasonable plea that the promotion was not substantive and thus belying their own documents which are very specific on the point. ( 8 ) HERE the question of embargo or no embargo does not arise and the Memorandum No. 3741 of 1964 is itself ab initio void and ultra vires. The Government cannot take any step to reverting the petitioners to their old position in Group 'd' if any mistake has been done and a joke is played with the petitioners then those officer's who are responsible for this cruel joke must be taken to task by the authorities concerned and the petitioners must not be punished by reversion for the guilt of others. I fully share the views of the petitioners that if they were reverted this would be nothing but a stigma on their service career, if not a penal consequence. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter the Memo No. 3899-E dated 21st March, 1986 issued by the Chief Engineer (P. W. D.), West Bengal, Respondent No. 2, and the Memo No. 105 dated 14th April, 1986 issued by the Superintending Engineer (P. W. D.), South Western Circle, Midnapore, Respondent No. 4 are hereby quashed. The Respondents are directed not to revert the petitioners to their old position from the present promotional posts of Work Assistant land pay all their outstanding dues, if any, within 15th September 1990. ( 10 ) BOTH the Writ applications are accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) LET xerox copy of this judgment be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of the necessary formalities. Application allowed