JUDGMENT - DAUD S.M., J.:---The two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, relate to one issue, namely the impermissibility of reverting promotee Naib Tahsildars to make room for nominee Naib Tahsildars. 2. Naib Tahsildars are a class of officers in the revenue services of the State. By Resolution No. R.C.T. 1062/27345-T dated 14th September, 1963, Government withdrew the subject of recruitment to the post of Naib Tahsildars in the Nagpur Division from the purview of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. The recruitment of Naib Tahsildars in the Division was entrusted to the Commissioner, Nagpur Division. Briefly, the resolution of 14th September, 1963 directed that the posts of Naib Tahsildars were to be filed in by nomination and promotion in the proportion of 50:50. Recruitment in keeping with the G.R. of 14th September, 1963, continued to be made from 1963 to 1970. From the year 1971 to 1984, the State Government did not make a direct recruitment to the post of Naib Tahsildars. In the year 1980, a draft of Rules for recruitment of Naib Tahsildars was prepared. The said draft was finalised and came into effect in the year 1986. On 3-9-1984, a request had been made by the Commissioners of Nagpur and Amravati Divisions (replacing the earlier single Commissionerate for Nagpur Division) for direct recruitment of Naib Tahsildars. This request was turned down by the State Government. However, on 3rd September, 1984, the Government in the revenues and the Forest Department permitted direct recruitment of Naib Tahsildars in the Nagpur and Amravati Divisions. This was to the extent of 50% and in keeping with the G.R. of 14th September, 1963. Apprehending trouble, the effected personnel describing themselves as a Akola District Revenue Department Class III Ministerial Government Servants' Association, Akola, together with four others filed Writ Petition No. 85 of 1985. The prayer made in this petition was for quashing memorandum dated 3-9-1984 and staying the implementation thereof by the concerned Commissioners. The respondents so that petition, namely, the State and the two Commissioners filed a return and one of the stands taken therein was that the proposed direct recruitment was "to prepare a waiting list of candidates to be appointed against the supernumerary posts to be sanctioned by the Government against 50% quota of Naib Tahsildars to be appointed by nomination". Having regard to this stand, the interim relief claimed by the petitioners was not granted. Having regard to this stand, the interim relief claimed by the petitioners was not granted. However, on 27th December, 1986, an order came to be passed at Annexure E and thereby 42 promotes in the Nagpur Division, were reverted to the post of First Grade Clerks from the post of Naib Tahsildars "for want of vacancies". This led to the institution of Writ Petition No. 2631 of 1986. 3. Petitioners contend that the quota rule envisaged by the G.R. dated 14-9-1963, had irreversibly broken down. Therefore, the Government could not after an interval of about 14 to 15 years, revert to the said rule and in the name of accommodating the direct recruits, push down the promotees. This was a negation of the promise guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents be injuncted against making the order of reversion of all those appearing in the list at Annexure E, in 1986 petition and for interdicting the operation of the 1986 Rules to the detriment of promotee Naib Tahsildars. The State in its return to the 1986 petition avers that the impugned direct recruitment was made to fill up the quota reserved for direct recruitment in accordance with the 1963 Rules. The candidates recruited were required to be on probation for a period of one year so as to acquaint themselves with the work required to be done by a person manning the office of a Naib Tahsildar. The continuation of the Direct recruits as supernumerary did not in any way militate against the 1963 Rules. After the expiry of the probation period, the direct recruits were required to be and were rightly appointed to the regular posts in the cadre of Naib Tahsildars. As a consequence, the promotees had to make way and for that reasons they had been reverted to the post of First Grade Clerks. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no direct recruitment from the year 1971 to 1985. Though the Government had prepared draft Rules in 1980, these were finalised as late as in 1986. Absence of direct recruitment for near about 15 years, clearly indicated that the quota rule incorporated in the G.R. of 14-9-1963, had been abandoned. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no direct recruitment from the year 1971 to 1985. Though the Government had prepared draft Rules in 1980, these were finalised as late as in 1986. Absence of direct recruitment for near about 15 years, clearly indicated that the quota rule incorporated in the G.R. of 14-9-1963, had been abandoned. It was not open to the Government to take recourse to the abandoned provisions with a view to make direct recruitment, and, at the costs of persons already manning the posts in the regular cadre of Naib-Tahsildar. In support of this submission, learned Counsel relies upon (Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1607. This was a judgment given on appeal by Apex Court---the appeal being against a judgment of this High Court to which one of us (Daud, J.) was a party. The pros and cons having been considered, the Supreme Court ended with a summation and the following therefrom is pressed into service by the learned Counsel representing the petitioner: "Where appointments are made from more than one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources, and if Rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly. But if it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do so, the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken down. Where the quota rule has broken down and the appointments are made from one source in excess of the quota, but are made after following the procedure prescribed by the rules for the appointment, the appointees should not be pushed down below the appointees from the other source included in the service at a later date." In the present case, the absence of direct recruitment from the year 1970 to 1985, leave no room for doubt about the quota rule having broken down. The appointments of promotees were made in excess of the prescribed quota to fill up the void resulting from the non-recruitment in the open market. The appointments of promotees were made in excess of the prescribed quota to fill up the void resulting from the non-recruitment in the open market. The promotees cannot now be pushed down to make way for direct recruits---such recruits having come in as late as 1985. The State Government's attempt to rely upon the G.R. of 14-9-1963, is unconvincing for had the said G.R. been in operation, the State Government in the earlier years would have made a recruitment from the open market. The State Government cannot be allowed to justify the discrimination practised against the promotees who include the petitioners. Hence the order: The petition succeed. Annexure 'E' is hereby quashed and the respondents are prohibited from reverting the promotees in the cadre of Naib Tahsildars to make room for the direct recruits. Rule in these terms made absolute with parties being left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed. -----