JUDGMENT G. C. Bharuka, J. - The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the office order no. 8 as contained in Memo no. 1995 dated 30-3-1990 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the State Government in the Department of Minor Irrigation whereby the order no. 2701 dated 27-5-88 passed by the Chief Engineer of Minor Irrigation Department granting promotion to the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner has prayed for some consequential reliefs as well. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. According to the petitioner, in the year 1979 he was appointed as a peon in the Minor Irrigation Division, Aurangabad. Thereafter by promotion he was appointed as 'Blue Printer'. In 1983 recommendations were made by the Superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer for his promotion to the post of Correspondence Clerk. The Chief Engineer by his letter as contained in memo no. 235 dated 14-4-83 made enquiry from the Superintending Engineer with regard to the position of the petitioner in the seniority list as also for indicating why only three persons including the petitioner were found fit to be promoted. After receiving the report on the above points and on consideration of seniority of the petitioner and other two persons, namely, Ajoy Kumar Dayal and Radha Krishna Mishra, and their merit-cum-eligibility for promotion, by office order as contained in Memo no. 2701 dated 27th May, 1983, Annexure-1, only two persons, namely, the petitioner and one Ajoy Kumar Dayal were promoted on temporary basis to the post of Correspondence Clerk. The pay scale of Correspondence Clerk according to the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission Report was Rs. 580-860/-. Despite the aforesaid order of promotion, the petitioner was not allowed to join on the post of Correspondence Clerk whereas other two persons, who were also similarly promoted, vide Annexure-1, were granted the benefits of promotion. On petitioner's persistent representations, ultimately on 7-6-83 he was allowed to work as a routine clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 535765/-, which is a lower pay scale than the pay scale of the post of Correspondence Clerk to which the petitioner was given promotion as per Annexure-1. The petitioner joined the newly assigned post of routine clerk under protest and went on filing representations to the Government for permitting him to join the post to which he was promoted vide Annexure-1. The petitioner joined the newly assigned post of routine clerk under protest and went on filing representations to the Government for permitting him to join the post to which he was promoted vide Annexure-1. He having failed to get any relief from the concerned authority, filed a Writ application in this Court being C.W.J.C No. 3166 of 1919 making a grievance as aforesaid. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of on 4-5-1989 by a Division Bench, inter alia, directing the respondents to dispose of the representations of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It seems that pursuant to the said order passed by this Court in the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 3166 of 1989, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-15 dated 30-3-90 contained in memo no. 1595 has been passed, whereby the order of promotion as contained in Annexure-1 to this application has been cancelled on the ground that promotion to the petitioner was wrongly granted because he is too junior in the seniority list. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is fit to be quashed on various grounds including : (i) once the petitioner has been promoted by the competent authority after taking into account all the relevant considerations including the seniority list and the merit of the petitioner then it is not permissible on the part of any authority muchless on the part of the Deputy Secretary to cancel the order of promotion except by way of punishment and that too after holding enquiry and completing other formalities as contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. (ii) The Respondents have not brought any, material on the record to show that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion as per the gradation list and the basis disclosed in Annexure-15 to this extent is wholly arbitrary and mala fide. (iii) The impugned order (Annexure-15) having civil consequences affecting the service of the petitioner and his livelihood, could not have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with the settled principle of natural justice and in any view of the matter the actions of the Respondents are violative of Articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. 4. On the other hand, Sri Devendra Kumar, learned Standing Counsel no. 4. On the other hand, Sri Devendra Kumar, learned Standing Counsel no. IV, appearing for the State of Bihar and its officers, submits that the promotion of the petitioner was temporary in nature and, therefore, in law, he bas no authority to raise any grievance with respect to the order contained in Annexure-15 even if it amounts to demotion in service. In substance, according to learned Standing Counsel Annexure-1 does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to claim promotion for all the times and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the annulment of the order of promotion as contained in Annexure-1. He also submits that the impugned order (Annexure-15) itself shows that his very promotion was illegal and unsustainable because it was not in conformity with the seniority list. 5. After hearing and appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order (Annexure-15) cannot be sustained in the eye of law and must be quashed as apart from all other considerations, learned Standing Counsel has failed to show any illegality going to the very root of the authority of the Chief Engineer, who has accorded promotion to the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that the Chief Engineer was the competent authority to grant promotion to the petitioner. It has also not been disputed that the Chief Engineer after giving due regard to the seniority list as well as the merit of the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure-19, had promoted the petitioner. However, no rule or any statutory provisions bas been brought to my notice to substantiate that the Deputy Secretary or any other officer had any competence to annul or cancel the order of promotion (Annexure-1). Further, in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the State Counsel for producing the seniority list, the same has not been produced in the Court. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the very reason, as disclosed in Annexure15, that the petitioner was too low in the seniority list and, therefore, be was not entitled to promotion, is baseless. 6. Further, in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the State Counsel for producing the seniority list, the same has not been produced in the Court. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the very reason, as disclosed in Annexure15, that the petitioner was too low in the seniority list and, therefore, be was not entitled to promotion, is baseless. 6. For all these reasons, I hold that the petitioner has acquired a legal right for being promoted to the post of Correspondence Clerk in accordance with the orders as contained in Annexure-1 to this petition and since he was not allowed to join on that post because of arbitrary and malafide actions on the parts of the Respondents concerned, therefore, the petitioner will be deemed to have been promoted and appointed on that post from the date of issuance of the order as contained in Annexure-1 to this application and he will be entitled to all his salaries and other service benefits as would be available to him according to the service conditions. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed and the order as contained in Annexure-15 is hereby quashed with the directions as given above. There shall be no order as to costs.