JUDGMENT P.P. Gupta, J. - The respondent, Prathama Bank, Moradabad, is one of the Regional Rural Banks constituted under the provisions of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 consultation with the Syndicate Bank which is the sponsored Bank and Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Petitioner No. 1 Ram Vir Singh, was appointed as Manager (Officer) on 7-8-1978 and was attached with the respondent Bank. 2. By an order dated 1-10-1985 (Annexure T to the petition) six posts of Regional Manager and six posts of Senior Manager were created. These posts were created in pursuance of the directions issued by the National Agricultural and Rural Development Bank (in short NABA D' vide its circular dated 31-12-1985 (Annexuro IP to the petition). After the creation of the aforesaid post, the petitioner No. 1 was also promoted as Area Manager vide memorandum dated 5-10-1985 (Annexuro TIP). Subsequently, with the change of personal in the top management, a notification was issued, according to which in interview for the promotion to the posts of Area Manager and Senior Manager was to be held on 3/4-8-1987. Petitioner No. 1 filed a suit No. 606 of 1986 on 17-9-1986 in the court of Munsif, Rampur for a declaration that the posting of petitioner No. 1 was not on officiating basis but was on regular basis against a substantive vacancy. Petitioner No. 1 was succeeded in obtaining an ad Interim stay order in bis favour, in the light of which the Selection of Regional and Senior Managers scheduled to take place on 3/4 8-1987 was postponed. The said suit was decided on 28-1-1988 partly in favour of petitioner No. 1 holding that petitioner No. 5 was full-fledged Area Manager only upto 30-9-1986, The respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate court. The respondent has allegedly filed a second appeal in this High Court, which is pending. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent Bank has issued a circular declaring that the selection for the 14 posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager shall be filled in by promotion and interview for the same shall be held on 26-7-l99o. A photostat copy of the said circular dated 16-7-1990 is Annexure VIP to the petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent Bank has issued a circular declaring that the selection for the 14 posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager shall be filled in by promotion and interview for the same shall be held on 26-7-l99o. A photostat copy of the said circular dated 16-7-1990 is Annexure VIP to the petition. The contention of tho petitioner is that out of 14 posts 12 posts have already been filled in by promotion in pursuance of the order of the Bank dated 1-10-1985 (Annexure *CA-III' to the counter affidavit) and apart from these 12 posts there ate no other posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager which can be filled by the respondent by holding interview in pursuance of its circular letter dated 26-7-1990. It has been contended that if the selection scheduled to take place on 26-7-1990 is to proceed, petition No. i as well as other 11 persons already appointed and working as Area Manager/Regional Managers would be reverted. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for mandamus directing the respondent not to hold selection to the post of Area Manager/Regional Manager in pursuance of the circular dated 16-7-1990 scheduled to take place from 26-7-1990 to 28-7-1990. 4. The respondent in its counter affidavit has admitted that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Manager (Officer) by respondent-Bank on probation on 1-1-1979. In the light of the recommendations made by NABARD (Annexure TP) by their circulars dated 31-12-1984, 12, posts of Area Manager/Regional Manager were created Since there was an urgency for filling in the posts for smooth running of the working of the Bank, a decision was taken to appoint 12 persons as officiating Senior Manager/Area Managers. Accordingly, 12 persons, including petitioner No. 1 were appointed as officiating Senior Managers/Area Managers. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as officiating Area Manager on 5-10-1985 (vide Annexure-III). While appointing these 12 persons as officiating Senior Manager/Are-Managers, no interview was taken and no selection was made on seniority-cum merit basis as was necessary in accordance with the circular of NABARD dated 31-12-1984. The contention of the respondent is that no selection for these 12 posts was made and petitioner No. 1 along with 11 others was appointed as Area Manager only in an officiating capacity. This arrangement was made till final selection of the Area Manager/Senior Managers was made in accordance with the Rules. The contention of the respondent is that no selection for these 12 posts was made and petitioner No. 1 along with 11 others was appointed as Area Manager only in an officiating capacity. This arrangement was made till final selection of the Area Manager/Senior Managers was made in accordance with the Rules. As the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers were to be filled in on the basis of regular selection as per Rules, the respondent-Bank decided to make regular selection and in the process issued notification on 11-6-1987 for holding interview for filling in the posts of Senior Managers/Area Managers on regular basis. By an order of the respondent dated 30-9-1986, petitioner No. 1 ceased to officiate as Regional Manager. In regard to the remaining 11 persons, their officiating charge was withdrawn by an order dated 4-8-1987 (Annexure CA-V'). As was notified in the notice dated 11-6-1987, interview has already been held and 14 persons, mentioned in Paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit, have already been selected on 28-7-1990 on the posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager. Thus, it was contended that this petition has before in fructuous on this ground alone and is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, it is the contention of the respondent that the appointment of petitioner No. 1 was only in an officiating capacity and he had no right to the post and so also the petition has to be dismissed. It is also the contention raised in the counter affidavit that since petitioner No. 2 is not an Association either registered or recognised by the Bank, the petition on its behalf is not maintainable. 5. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 6. It is an admitted case of the parties that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Manager (Officer) by the respondent-Bank. During his posting, a recommendation to the respondent-Bank was made by NABARD to create posts of General Managers and Senior Managers/Area Manager in Regional Rural Banks on 31-12-1984 (Annexure T) On this recommendation of NABARD, some posts the Area Managers/Senior Managers were created. During his posting, a recommendation to the respondent-Bank was made by NABARD to create posts of General Managers and Senior Managers/Area Manager in Regional Rural Banks on 31-12-1984 (Annexure T) On this recommendation of NABARD, some posts the Area Managers/Senior Managers were created. Since the network of the branches of the Bank were scattered in far flung areas throughout the length and breadth of two districts of Moradabad and Rampur, therefore, the order to effectively co-ordinate the branches, spirited motivate the manning personnel and to accelerate the pace of growth, it was considered that the Bank was in desperate reed of the services of Area Managers in the field and in addition Senior Managers at Head Office level. Hence, a suggestion was made by the Head Office of respondent-Bank that an arrangement for filling up the vacancies should be made arid pending finalisation of regular postings, the officiating arrangement may be immediately effected. This recommendation of the Head Office was approved by the Chairman, who directed to make officiating arrangements pending final selection of candidates, which is apparent from a perusal of Annexure CA-IIP. It was thereafter that the Head Office of the respondent-Bank, vide its order dated 5-10-1985 (Annexure CA-1V') made the officiating arrangement for the posts of area Manager/Senior Managers and appointed 12 persons including petitioner No. 1, who was appointed as Area Manager, Rampur Circle. 7. It is, therefore, clear from these facts and documents on record that the appointment of petitioner No. 1 was never on permanent basis but he was only to officiate as Area Manager, Rampur Circle, pending finalisation of selection in the light of the recommendations of NABARD and the Rules. 8. The contention on behalf of petitioner No. 1 is that there was nothing in the recommendations of NABARD authorising the respondent-Bank to make officiating arrangements, as such the contention of the respondent-Bank that petitioner No. 1 was asked to hold the post of Area Manager in an officiating capacity cannot be accepted. 9. The recommendations of NABARD are contained in its letter dated 31-10-1984 (Annexure Tl 'to the petition). With the growth in business and geographical coverage of the RRB the need for further strengthening the supervisory arrangements both in the field as well as the Head Office, had been felt for sometime. 9. The recommendations of NABARD are contained in its letter dated 31-10-1984 (Annexure Tl 'to the petition). With the growth in business and geographical coverage of the RRB the need for further strengthening the supervisory arrangements both in the field as well as the Head Office, had been felt for sometime. The matter was examined in depth by Government of India in consultation with NABARD and it was approved in principle that the posts of General Managers and Senior Managers/Area Managers in Regional Rural Banks should be created as and when required and justified by the volume and nature of work. This letter of NABARD mentions that the guidelines for the appointments to these posts will have to be given the shape of service Regulations. Draft regulations were accordingly being framed and were to be circulated for adoption by the individual banks. It was emphasised in this letter that in the meantime these guidelines are being circulated to enable the banks to make there the basis for necessary advance action for filling up these vacancies. This letter of NABARD contains only the decision taken at the highest level in regard to the creation of posts of General Managers and Senior Managers/Area Managers in Regional Rural Banks. There was nothing in this letter to prohibit the making of temporary arrangements till the service Regulations are finally made. Considering the urgency, the respondent-Bank decided to make stop-gap arrangement by appointing the Managers already working to officiate as Senior Managers) Area Managers, as is apparent from the recommendations of the Head Office dated 1-10-1985 and its approval by the Chairman of the Bank (Annexure CA-III') another letter of the Head Office dated 5-10-1985 (Annexure C.A-IV') leaves no room for any doubt that in view of the recommendations of the NABARD and urgency of the matter, 12 persons were made to officiate as Area Managers/Senior Managers. Petitioner No. I was to officiate as Area Manager, Rampur Circle. A letter was accordingly issued to petitioner No. 1 on 5-10-1985 (Annexure HP to the petition) by which he was designated as officiating Area Manager with immediate effect. In addition, to bis officiating at the post of Area Manager he was also to hold charge of the Headquarter Branch as Manager. This letter further mentions that Rs. 75/- per month as officiating allowance for officiating as Area Manager will be admissible to him. In addition, to bis officiating at the post of Area Manager he was also to hold charge of the Headquarter Branch as Manager. This letter further mentions that Rs. 75/- per month as officiating allowance for officiating as Area Manager will be admissible to him. Petitioner No. 1 accepted it and submitted joining report on the same day (Annexure TV') These documents leave no room for any doubt that the appointment of petitioner No. 1 to the post of Area Manager was in an officiating capacity. His contention that his appointment to the post of Area Manager was a substantive promotion on regular permanent basis cannot, therefore, be accepted. 10. Petitioner No. 1 has contended that after receiving the letter dated 5-10-1985 (Annexure TIP) he and other promotees raised objection through their association that they had wrongly been designated as officiating' in the order of promotion, whereupon the Chairman directed them to submit their joining report without indicating the word officiating' and in view of that assurance of the Chairman, the joining report was given without using the word officiating'. This contention of petitioner No. 1 has vehemently been denied on behalf of the respondent. There are no documents to this effect that any such representation was made by the Association and the Chairman had given any such assurance to the Association. Had it been so, the joining report (Annexure IV') would have mentioned this fact the word officiating' is being dropped on the assurance given by the Chairman to the Bank's association. 11. For the reasons already given, 1 am of the firm opinion that the pending final selection of the candidates to the posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager in accordance with the service Regulations, a stop-gap arrangement was made by which petitioner No. I, along with 11 others while working as Manager, was designated as officiating Area Manager and for that he was to get Rs. 75/- per month as officiating allowance. It was not his substantive promotion. He was working only in an officiating capacity and so if this facility was withdrawn it will not amount to his reversion. 12. Appointment to a post in a Government service on an officiating basis is, from the very nature of such employment, itself of a transitory character and it is terminable at any time. He was working only in an officiating capacity and so if this facility was withdrawn it will not amount to his reversion. 12. Appointment to a post in a Government service on an officiating basis is, from the very nature of such employment, itself of a transitory character and it is terminable at any time. As far back as in the year 1958 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhlngra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 held : "In short, in the case of an appointment to a permanent post in a Government service on probation or on an officiating basis, the servant so appointed does not acquire any substantive right to the post and consequently cannot complain, any more than a private servant employed on probation or on an officiating basis can do, if his service is terminated at any time " 13. The law laid down in this case has since been followed in a number of cases till today. In the case of Union of India v. K.R. Tahlliani and another, ( AIR 1980 SC 953 ) Hon'ble V.R. Krishna Iyer, J, observed : "An officiating hand has no right to the post and is perhaps a fleeting bird who may have to go back to the substantive post from which he has been promoted on an officiating basis. What is more to the point, a person who has been appointed de novo may begin his service on an officiating basis or on a temporary basis and it is obvious that he has no right to the post and cannot be strictly said to be in that service or post as a member of that service." 14. Recently in the case of State of Bihar v. Dr. Yogendra Singh Col. (Retd.) and others, ( AIR 1982 SC 882 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held : "It is elementary that when a person is appointed on an Ad hoc basis, his tenure is precarious and be cannot claim to continue in service until the age of Buperanuation." 15. Thus a person officiating in a post has no right to hold it for all times. He may have been given the officiating post because permanent incumbent was not available for any reasons whatsoever,. Thus a person officiating in a post has no right to hold it for all times. He may have been given the officiating post because permanent incumbent was not available for any reasons whatsoever,. When those reasons do no more exist, the person officiating is naturally reverted to his original post without giving him any cause of action. He cannot agitate for the post on the only ground that he was officiating on that post. Applying the principles discussed above it is quite clear that petitioner No. 1 was appointed to the higher post on an officiating basis, i.e., he was appointed only to perform the duties of that post in addition to his own duties as Manager. He bad no legal right to continue on that post of Area Manager on which he was officiating before his reversion and under the general law the implied term of such officiating appointment was that it was terminable at any time by the Bank and, therefore, his reduction did not operate as a forfeiture of any right and could not be described as reduction in rank by way of punishment, nor did this reduction amounted to his dismissal or removal. It also did not entail the chance of his future selection on the higher post of Area Manager or affect his seniority in his substantive post. In the circumstances there is no escape from the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 was not reduced in rank by way of punishment and, therefore, the provisions of Article 311 (2) do not come into play at all. The result, therefore, is that the petition has no force and must be dismissed. 16. Moreover, the only relief prayed for in this petition was for a direction in tho nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to hold interview of selection pursuant to the notice dated 16-7-1990 (Annexure VII') scheduled to take place from 26-7-1990 to 28-7-1990 for the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager. According to un controverted contention of the respondent contained in Paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit the selection for the posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager has already taken place and 14 persons whose names area mentioned there in have been selected on 28-7-1990. For this reason also, this petition has now become in fructuous. 17. According to un controverted contention of the respondent contained in Paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit the selection for the posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager has already taken place and 14 persons whose names area mentioned there in have been selected on 28-7-1990. For this reason also, this petition has now become in fructuous. 17. It may also be mentioned that since petitioner No. 2 is neither registered nor is a recognised Association by the respondent-Bank, the petition on its behalf is not maintainable. 18. For the reasons given above, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.