JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi 1. In this writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents are agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8th August, 1988 by which he has been reverted from the post of Traffic Inspector Grade II to the post of Booking Clerk. The petitioner's case is that he was initially appointed as Booking Clerk on 23rd March, 1968 by the General Manager, Varanasi of the then U. P. State Roadways. In 1972, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was constituted and along with the other employees, his services were transferred to the aforesaid Corporation and with effect from 1st June, 1972, he became its employee. Considering his meritorious record of service, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Traffic Inspector Grade II vide order dated 5th February, 1984, the order is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. By this order, the petitioner was promoted with effect from 8th June, 1983. Since then, he was continuing as Traffic Inspector Grade II. He was given excellent entries in his character roll and in the year 1986-87, he was given special appreciation certificate for performing excellent duties during Magh Mela at Allahabad. The seniority lists of Traffic Inspector Grade II were prepared by the Corporation and petitioner's name was mentioned at Serial No. 5 in the seniority lists prepared for the region, whereas in the seniority list prepared for the Eastern Zone, the petitioner has been shown at Serial No. 35. The aforesaid seniority lists have been filed as Annexures 2 and 3 respectively with the writ petition. However, by the Impugned order dated 8th August, 1988, the petitioner has been reverted illegally without giving opportunity of hearing. The impugned order has also been challenged on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the persons junior to him have been retained in service. 3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was promoted by mistake against which the representations were made by the other Booking Clerks. 3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was promoted by mistake against which the representations were made by the other Booking Clerks. The petitioner was junior to several persons, he has been reverted back on the basis of the representations made by the Booking Clerks senior to him. The impugned order has also been sought to be justified on" the ground that the petitioner was promoted on temporary basis with the condition that he will be reverted at any time without any show cause notice. 4. The respondents also filed a supplementary counter affidavit dated 1st May, 1990 by which an attempt has been made to 1 establish that the post of Booking Clerk and Traffic Inspector Grade II are equivalent posts and the alary of both the posts is equal hence there is no redaction In rani by the Impugned order and the petitioner has been only assigned another duty. Certain circulars have also been filed in order to substantiate the allegation. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder affidavits controverting allegations made by the respondents. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. The impugned order dated 8th August, 1988 has admittedly been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. The petitioner was promoted with effect from 8th June, 1983. He has already worked on the post for 5 years and his name was mentioned in the seniority list. A perusal of the seniority list, Annexure 3 to the writ petition will show that there are about 25 persons junior to the petitioner who are still working as Traffic Inspector Grade II" and the impugned order in view of this fact cannot be sustained. The order is arbitrary and discriminatory. From the order dated 6th February, 1984, it does not appear that the petitioner promotion was only officiating in fact the promotion given was temporary. Thus, the petitioner could not be reduced in rank as the persons junior to him are being retained in the post. 6. The order is arbitrary and discriminatory. From the order dated 6th February, 1984, it does not appear that the petitioner promotion was only officiating in fact the promotion given was temporary. Thus, the petitioner could not be reduced in rank as the persons junior to him are being retained in the post. 6. Sri V. M. Sahay, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued and tried to justify the order on the ground that as the promotion was be mistake, he has rightly been reverted back and there was no necessity of giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, I am not impressed by the submission made by SRI Sahay. If the petitioner's promotion was by mistake, he ought to have been given an opportunity to defend his claim. It is well known that the basis for promotion is not always seniority. The promotion is given on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. The petitioner has every right to show that the authorities while passing the order dated 6th February, 1984 promoting the petitioner had done so considering his claim better, then his seniors. The impugned order as such has been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. SRI Sahay placed reliance on cases Prayag Das Seth v. Secretary to Government of U. P., AIR 1968 Alld. 279, 1971 SLR 561 (Punjab and Haryana), 1979 All India Services Law Journal 163 (Rajasthan High Court, Rajasthan), AIR 1974 SC 423 . I have considered all the aforesaid cases. In my opinion the cases referred are distinguishable in facts and do not help the respondents in any manner. The Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 1974 423 disapproved the action of reduction in rank where juniors were retained. The relevant paragraph 20 of the aforesaid case can be gainfully quoted here : "In the instant case we have no doubt in our mind that the peculiar circumstance that from out of a group of about 200 officers most of whom are junior to the respondent, the respondent alone has been reverted to the sub substantive post of Head Constable, makes it absolutely clear that there was no administrative reason for this reversion. In fact there was no suggestion at any time made on behalf of the appellant that the post had been abolished or that the respondent was, for administrative reasons, required to go back to his own post of head constable. This circumstance only corroborates what the learned standing counsel for the State admitted before the High Court that the foundation of the order of reversion is the adverse entry made in his character roll. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt that the order was passed by way of punishment, though all outward indicia show the order to be a mere order of reversion. Even if it were not so, we have no doubt that the order would be liable to be quashed on the ground of contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." The second submission of Sri V. M. Sahay is that the posts of Booking Clerk and Traffic Inspector Grade II are equivalent and by the impugned order no reduction in rank has been caused and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. This submission has also no force. A perusal of the impugned order will show that the petitioner has been reverted from the higher rank. It does not mention that he is being transferred to other posts. The respondents have filed office circular, of 1978, 1979 and 1980 to show that the two posts are equivalent. However, the petitioner has filed the resolution of the board dated 22-3-1985 which shows that the post of Booking Clerk and Traffic Inspector Grade II are not equivalent. Be as it may, the respondents could, while passing the impugned order, very well mention this fact and the impugned order could not have been in the form it has been passed. The respondents cannot be allowed to supplement or justify the order by supplying reasons which are not mentioned in the impugned order. The petitioner has made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 8th August, 1988 Annexure 4 to the writ petition is quashed. 8. The petitioner has made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 8th August, 1988 Annexure 4 to the writ petition is quashed. 8. The petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated as Traffic Inspector Grade II and shall also be entitled for the difference in salary, in case he was working as Booking Clerk during pendeney of the writ petition. It is however, made clear that it shall remain open to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.