JUDGMENT Vijai Bahuguna, J. - Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. The petitioners were working as Senior Clerks in various offices of the district of Allahabad under the Bal Vikas Pariyojna. By means of the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged their reversions to the post of Junior Clerks which have been done by means of a notice published in the local news paper 'Dainik Jagran' in the issue dated 22nd December, 1991. A copy of this notice has been filed with each of the writ petitions. The notice states that the services of the petitioners, who were promoted to the post of the Senior Clerks on 16.2.1991 by the concerned district officer in disregard of the circular issued by the Director on the 22nd of November, 1990 to the effect that promotion from Junior Clerks to Senior Clerks should not be made. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners were promoted on 16th of February, 1991. The power to appoint the Senior Clerks and Junior Clerks vested in the District Magistrate under the Government Order of 7th August, 1990 The District Magistrate had delegated his powers to the Chief Development Officer. The petitioners' initial appointments and also their promotions were made by the Chief Development Officer under the Government Order dated 7th August, 1990. By a subsequent Government Order dated 18.2.1991, the State Government withdraw the power of appointment relating to Junior Clerks and Senior Clerks from the concerned District Magistrates and conferred the said power upon the Director. 4. It was only with effect from 18th of February, 1991, that the Director became the appointing authority for the posts of Junior Clerks and Senior Clerks, and he alone has a right to promote Junior Clerks to the post of Senior Clerks. It is apparent that before 18th of February, 1991, the Director did not have the power of either appointing or promoting such senior Clerks or Junior Clerks, who had been appointed by the concerned District Magistrates in exercise of the powers given under the Government Order of 7th of August, 1990. 5. It is apparent that before 18th of February, 1991, the Director did not have the power of either appointing or promoting such senior Clerks or Junior Clerks, who had been appointed by the concerned District Magistrates in exercise of the powers given under the Government Order of 7th of August, 1990. 5. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the state that the District Magistrates were bound to follow the Circular issued by the Director on the 22nd of November, 1990 is not tenable in law inasmuch the Director was not the appointing authority in relation to the posts of Junior Clerks and Senior Clerks and the power for appointments and promotions was vested with the District Magistrate. The power has not been conferred retrospectively upon the Director and as such the reversion of the petitioners on 2nd December, 1991, is contrary to law and is liable to be quashed. The notices of reversion dated 2nd December, 1991, published in the newspaper Dainik Jagran, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure to each of the writ petition, are quashed. The petitioners shall continue to work as Senior Clerks. For the purposes of preparation of the seniority list the petitioner would be deemed to have been duly prom as Senior Clerks with effect from 16tfi' February, 1991 before coming into force of the subsequent Government Order on 15th February, 1991, which for the first time conferred the power of appointment upon the Director. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.