JUDGMENT Brijesh Verma, J. - The above noted two writ petitions arise out of a common judgment dated 1-3-1980, passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, on the claim petitions separately filed by the petitioners against the orders of their reversion from the post of Head Mistresses to the post of Assistant Teachers. In this Court, they filed writ petitions separately. Since common question of law is involved, these petitions are proposed to be disposed of by one common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Vimla Kumari Srivastava was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School, Municipal Board, Lucknow in the year 1959. Smt. Champa Seth was appointed as Assistant teacher in the Primary School of Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow in the year 1971; she was promoted to the post of Head Mistress in the year 1965 whereas Smt. Vimla Kumari Srivastava was promoted as Head Mistress in the year 1972. On coming into force of Basic Shiksha Adhiniyam, these Schools were covered by the provisions of the said Act. Both above mentioned petitioners were reverted to the post of Assistant Teachers in the year 1975. They preferred writ petitions in this Court which was allowed holding that the orders of their reversion were bad in absence of any opportunity having been afforded to them before reversion. The order of this Court was passed on July 30, 1975. 3. Thereafter show cause notices were served upon the petitioners, true copies of which have been annexed alongwith the writ petitions. The notices indicated that the petitioners were temporarily promoted to the posts of Head Mistress. According to the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Shiksha Sewa Niyamavali, Part IV, Rule 18, promotion to the post of Head Mistress could be made by competent authority from amongst the permanent teachers. The notices, however, said that the petitioners were not permanent Assistant Teachers, hence their promotion to the post of Head Mistress was not in accordance with the Rules. Another ground indicated in the notice was that the selection was not made through a Selection Committee duly constituted for the purpose, but it was through a Selection Committee consisting of Up Nagar Adhikari, Mukhya Nagar Lekha Parikshak and Shiksha Adhikshika, Nagar Mahapalika Lucknow. Another ground indicated in the notice was that the selection was not made through a Selection Committee duly constituted for the purpose, but it was through a Selection Committee consisting of Up Nagar Adhikari, Mukhya Nagar Lekha Parikshak and Shiksha Adhikshika, Nagar Mahapalika Lucknow. The petitioners had submitted their replies to the show cause notices which, it appears, were not acceptable to the opposite-parties, hence fresh orders of reversion dated 3-10-1977 were passed reverting the petitioners to the post of Assistant Teachers. As indicated earlier the petitioners filed separate claim petitions before the Public Services Tribunal impugning the orders of the reversion. The claim petitions were resisted on behalf of the opposite-parties on the grounds mentioned in the show cause notices as well as on the ground that there were other senior persons available for promotion, hence the petitioners could not be promoted ignoring those persons. The Public Services Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions repelling the contentions of the petitioners that they were qualified for being promoted to the post of Head Mistress as they were permanent Assistant Teachers. The Tribunal also found that since promotions were from lower post to the higher post, then seniority had to be taken into consideration alongwith merit. It also observed that there was nothing to show that the petitioners were permanently promoted as Head Mistress. According to the Tribunal, their promotions appear to have been made on temporary basis, The Tribunal also observed, "When it has been found that the senior candidates were overlooked in making selection for the posts of Head Mistresses and that the petitioners were not really qualified for promotion being not permanent Assistant Teachers then if after giving opportunity of showing cause to the petitioners the orders in question have been passed for reverting the petitioners to their original posts of Assistant Teachers, then it cannot be said that there is any such illegality in the orders on which it could be set aside". 4. First of all, let the claim of the petitioners that they are permanent Assistant Teachers, be examined. In this connection, reliance has been placed upon Rule 20 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Shiksha Sewa Niyamavali, 1971 which reads as follows : "Probation. 4. First of all, let the claim of the petitioners that they are permanent Assistant Teachers, be examined. In this connection, reliance has been placed upon Rule 20 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Shiksha Sewa Niyamavali, 1971 which reads as follows : "Probation. - (I) All persons appointed to the service whether by direct recruitment or by promotion in or against substantive vacancies shall be placed on probation for a period of one years Provided...................... Provided, secondly, that the appointing authority may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing extend the period of probation in individual cases, for a further period not exceeding one year. Any such order of extension shall specify the exact period for which the probation is extended." 5. On the basis of above provision, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the maximum limit of period of probation has been fixed under the Rules. Period of probation could not be extended beyond two years, hence the result would be that after expiry of two years from the date of appointment, the petitioners are to be treated as confirmed. In this connection, the contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite-parties is that the order of appointment doss not indicate that the appointment of the petitioner was on probation. It has been submitted that it was only an ad hoc temporary appointment. Here, it would be appropriate to note that in Para 2 of the counter-affidavit filed by opposite-parties No. 3 and 4, has been averred that the petitioners were confirmed with effect from 1-8-1972 as Assistant Teachers by an order issued in November, 1975, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure C-I to the counter-affidavit in the writ petition filed by Smt. Champa Seth. 6. A perusal of the orders of appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers indicate that they were appointed in reference to their applications in the prescribed grade from the date of talking over charge. They were required to produce certificates of their physical fitness etc. in the prescribed forms. The orders do not indicate, nor give any inkling of the fact that the appointments were made on ad hoc or temporary basis. It is true, it is also not mentioned that they were appointed on probation. However, the fact which requires to be noted is that their appointments were against substantive vacancies. in the prescribed forms. The orders do not indicate, nor give any inkling of the fact that the appointments were made on ad hoc or temporary basis. It is true, it is also not mentioned that they were appointed on probation. However, the fact which requires to be noted is that their appointments were against substantive vacancies. This is evident from the fact that even according to the opposite-parties, the petitioners were confirmed on the post of Assistant Teachers by an order passed in 1975 with effect from 1972. Thus the posts and vacancies against which their appointments were made, were substantive. As indicated earlier, the orders of appointment do not show that their appointments were temporary or on ad hoc basis. Rule 19(1) of the Service Rules referred to above provides for substantive appointment whereas sub rule (3) provides for temporary and officiating appointment. The appointment letters do not indicate that the appointments were officiating or temporary. The vacancies were substantive which could not be denied. Rule 19 provides for appointment on occurrence of a substantive vacancy on probation. In view of the above position, it is not open to the opposite-parties to contend that the appointments of the petitioners were temporary or on ad hoc basis, much less when they themselves confirmed them later on with effect from 1972 on the post of Assistant Teachers. There is an outer limit given for extended period of probation. True the opposite-parties have not said that period of probation of the petitioners was extended, but still in cases where it could not go beyond a certain limit, or expiry of that period of probation it will but have to be presumed that the period of probation is over and the employee concerned is confirmed. In this connection, a reference can beneficially be made to a case reported in AIR 1986 SC 1844 : 1987 UPLBEC 50 (SC). Om Prakash Maurya v. U. P. Co-operative Sugar Factory Federation, Lucknow and others. In that case, the petitioner was continued on the post against a regular vacancy beyond the maximum period of probation permissible under the law. The period of probation could not be extended beyond that. The Supreme Court took the view that in absence of extension to any further period, the petitioner will have to be taken as confirmed. 7. In that case, the petitioner was continued on the post against a regular vacancy beyond the maximum period of probation permissible under the law. The period of probation could not be extended beyond that. The Supreme Court took the view that in absence of extension to any further period, the petitioner will have to be taken as confirmed. 7. Another aspect of the matter is that the petitioners were admittedly confirmed as Assistant Teachers in the year 1975 with effect from 1972. Fresh order of their reversion were passed on 3-10-1977. The requirement for promotion to the post of Head Mistress was that one has to be a confirmed Assistant Teacher for five years. If this condition is applied as it is, it is clear that the petitioners had completed five years as confirmed Assistant Teachers. This would be one of the cases in which the petitioners had, in any case, acquired the requisite qualification before adverse orders were passed against them, even though at the time of promotion such a qualification was lacking. Such a condition like confirmation, is not such that it may not remove the initial defect, if any, in the matter of promotion see 979(1) SCC 168. In this view of the matter as well, the orders of reversion passed after the petitioners had completed five years period ss confirmed Assistant Teachers, are also bad. 8. It has been noted that in the notice for show cause the other ground was that the Selection Committee, which had selected the petitioners was not duly constituted according to the Rules. So far this ground is concerned it may be observed that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 806 of 1980 was promoted as Head Mistress in the year 1966. The show cause notice is dated 23-9-1976, that is to say, it is after ten years that she was required to show cause against her reversion on the ground that her selection was not through the Selection Committee constituted according to rules. The order of promotion, contained in Annexure-2 to her writ petition does not indicate that the promotion was not on regular basis or that it was temporary, officiating or ad hoc According to learned Counsel for the petitioner at least two members of the Selection Committee were the same as, according to opposite-parties, three were required to be there under the rules. Similarly the petitioner in the other writ petition was promoted in the year 1972 and the show cause notice was given after four years of her promotion It was not at all appropriate and reasonable for the opposite-parties to unsettle the position as regards promotion of the petitioners after such a long lapse of time The selection should be cancelled immediately after it was held as soon as it had come to the notice of the opposite-parties that there was some irregularity in constituting the Selection Committee. It cannot be permitted that they may sleep over the matter for years together and wake upto unsettle the long existing position at their will and whenever they may like to do so. 9. The opposite-parties could not bank upon any other ground except those which were mentioned in the show cause notices. Therefore, the opposite-parties could not raise the ground that some other senior persons were not considered for promotion at the time of promotion of the petitioners. The Public Services Tribunal also fell into error in faking that fact into account while dismissing the claim petitions. It travelled beyond the reasons indicated in the show cause notices for reverting the petitioners. 10. In view of the discussion held above, the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, both the writ petitions mentioned above are allowed with costs and the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal dated 1-3-1980, contained in Annexure-10 in both the petitions is set aside. The claim petitions preferred by the petitioners stand allowed and the orders of their reversion dated 3-10-1977, as contained in Annexure-6 in W. P. No, 806 of 1980 and Annexure-8 in W. P No. 975 of 1980 are set aside with all consequential benefits.