JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. The case set out by the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as work charge helper for 3 months in the services of the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as 'the corporation'). His service was extended from time to time and by order dated 1.8.88 he was given appointment as Helper in the regular pay scale. This appointment was given to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 34 of the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (Staff Regulations), 1974. This appointment was for a period of one year or till the availability of the candidates selected by due process. 2. On 6.7.90, the petitioner was informed that the post of Helper has been abolished and as per the Resolution passed by the Board of the respondent Corporation in its meeting held on 24th May, 1990, it was decided to offer appointment the petitioner as Junior Assistant. He was called upon to exercise option. The petitioner submitted an application in pursuance of the letter dated 6.7.90, and requested that he may be appointed as Junior Assistant and that he would give up the benefit of retrenchment compensation etc. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant by order dated 7.7.90 against the direct recruitment quota post. He joined the service on 9.7.90. Now by an order dated 19.1990/11.9.90 the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Godown Keeper. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 1.9.90/11.9.90 on the ground that there can be no reversion of a person who has been appointed against the direct recruitment quota post. The other ground of challenge is that the petitioner's appointment to the post of Junior Assistant was for a fixed period of one year and, therefore, before expiry of one year, the petitioner could not have been removed from service either by reversion or other,wise. The third ground of attack is that the reason given in the order of reversion, namely, non-joining of Senior Assistant, is no reason in the eye of law, because the Corporation ought to have undertaken exercise for making appointment to the post of Senior Assistant or higher posts from amongst the other eligible candidates. 3. The third ground of attack is that the reason given in the order of reversion, namely, non-joining of Senior Assistant, is no reason in the eye of law, because the Corporation ought to have undertaken exercise for making appointment to the post of Senior Assistant or higher posts from amongst the other eligible candidates. 3. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have come out with the case that all 64 vacancies in the cadre of Jr. Assistants are already occupied by the persons who have been appointed on the post of Junior Assistants on regular basis and since the petitioner was junior most person, was rendered surplus on the grounds and circumstances which have been explained in the reply, therefore, he has been sent back to the post of Godown Keeper. According to the respondents, promotions had been made to the post of Junior Accountants from amongst the Senior Assistants. Some persons did not join on the post of Junior Accountants and therefore they had been adjusted as Senior Assistants. The consequential effect was on the posts of Senior Assistant and then Junior Assistants. Thus the post which was occupied by the petitioner became non-existent. Therefore, service of the petitioner had either to be terminated, he was to be adjusted on some other post. No post of Helper was available in the Corporation. However, taking a humanistic approach, the Corporation decided to adjust the petitioner against the post of Godown Keeper. This according to the respondents is perfectly justified. The respondents have stated that the petitioner does not have any legal right to continue on the post of Junior Assistant in view of the fact that the post is not available and he is one of the junior most Junior Assistant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that an appointee by way of direct recruitment in the service cannot be reverted to a lower post. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Husain Sansawah v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1987 SC 1627 ) . The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Corporation has not acted fairly, inasmuch as it has not taken exercise to make promotions on the post of Senior Assistants from amongst the Junior Assistants and also on other higher posts. The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Corporation has not acted fairly, inasmuch as it has not taken exercise to make promotions on the post of Senior Assistants from amongst the Junior Assistants and also on other higher posts. In their exercise had been undertaken perhaps more posts in the cadre of Junior Assistants would have become available and then there would have been no occasion for passing of the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the .petitioner has mis-interpreted the order dated 1.9.1990/11.9.1990. The Corporation has taken sympathetic view of the petitioner's position and instead of terminating his service, it has accommodated him on the post of Godown Keeper by way of repatriation. According to Shri Mahendra Singh, once the Corporation has come to the conclusion that the post of Junior Assistant is not available, it has no option but to terminate the service of the petitioner or to adjust him on some other post. 6. From perusal of Annexure-6, it is clear that the petitioner had been appointed as Junior Assistant for a period of one year on temporary basis in the regular pay scale of 950-1680. This appointment was not made by promotion, but was a short of adjustment made by the Corporation because the petitioner, normally, would have been thrown out of employment by way of retrenchment on account of abolition of the post of Helper held by him. However, a person who is appointed by directly to a particular post and not by promotion, on abolition of post or having been rendered surplus on account of some administrative reasons, cannot be reverted to a lower post. The reason is very simple. A person appointed directly to a post has no lower post in ladder. His appointment is not on the basis of seniority of merit. Therefore he cannot be asked to work on a lower post. Of course the employer has an option of terminating his service. Although in the impugned order dated 1.9.1990/11.9.1990 the word 'repatriation' has been used. But the learned counsel for the respondents could not show as to under what rule this so called repatriation has been ordered by the Corporation. May be, that the petitioner does not want to take advantage of the sympathetic and humanitarian attitude adopted by the Corporation, but that is certainly his choice. But the learned counsel for the respondents could not show as to under what rule this so called repatriation has been ordered by the Corporation. May be, that the petitioner does not want to take advantage of the sympathetic and humanitarian attitude adopted by the Corporation, but that is certainly his choice. In my opinion, the order dated 1.9.90/11.9.1990 by which the petitioner is sought to be reverted or repatriated on the post of Godown Keeper cannot be justified. The Corporation was certainly free to take any decision once it come to the conclusion that the posts of Junior Assistants were no more available. The petitioner cannot claim a legal right to continue on the post of Junior Assistant after the post of Junior Assistant had to be utlised for accommodating some senior persons who had foregone their promotions on the higher post. The petitioner can have no preferential claim over those persons who are senior and who have been adjusted on the posts of Junior Assistants when they had foregone their promotions. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 1.9.1990/11.9.1990 is quashed so far as it relates to the reversion/repatriation of the petitioner. However, the Corporation will be free to pass appropriate order including the order of termination of the petitioner's service in accordance with law. 8. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******