B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of reversion dated 10-6-81 (Annexure "b") passed by the respondent No. 1 reverting the petitioner from the post of Ferro Machine Operator to the post of Peon. ( 2 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 3 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 4 ) IT is true that by subsequent order dated 3-8-81 (Annexure "d") respondent no. 2 has stated that as per the order of the Government, the petitioner is not having requisite qualification and he was given appointment on 29-11-78 (Annexure "a"), and till new appointment is made, the petitioner is continued for a further period of 3 months purely on temporary basis on the post of Ferro Machine Operator, and as and when alternative arrangement is made, he will be reverted to the post of Peon. It is also true that the petitioner has not challenged that order. But the question is whether the petitioner can be precluded from challenging the impugned order of reversion at Annexure "b", merely because he has not challenged the subsequent order dated 3-8-81 at Annexure "d". In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the same before this Court Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate, was right in submitting that the initial order of appointment dated 29-11-78 (Annexure "a") is nothing but an order of promotion, promoting the petitioner from the post of Peon to the post of Ferro Machine Operator on a permanent basis, as in that order it is clearly mentioned that no objection certificate was issued by the employment Exchange before passing that order. In that order, it is no where stated by the respondent no. 2 that the petitioners appointment to the post of Ferro Machine Operator was either temporary or on ad hoc basis. It may be that after appointing the petitioner as ferro Machine Operator, the respondent No. 2 might have applied before the Government for relaxing the qualification of the petitioner and the Government may not have relaxed the qualification. Because, the Government did not relax the qualification, that does not mean that the respondent no. 2 can change his earlier order of appointing the petitioner on permanent basis and make his appointment temporary and ad hoc for three months and that too without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Because, the Government did not relax the qualification, that does not mean that the respondent no. 2 can change his earlier order of appointing the petitioner on permanent basis and make his appointment temporary and ad hoc for three months and that too without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was not required to challenge that order when it was passed, as it was null and void order, which could not have changed the original status of the petitioner, because his initial order of permanent appointment was not cancelled or varied by the respondent No. 1. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner, rightly submitted that the impugned order at Annexure "b" is in clear violation of principle of natural justice, as before passing the impugned order, the respondent No. 2 has not given any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner hence it is null and void. In support of his submission, Mr. Nanavati, has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha vs. State of Bihar reported in air 1991 Supreme Court 309. In that case, the appointments of the petitioners, who were assistant Teachers, came to be cancelled by an order dated 2. 11. 1988 and they challenged the same on the ground that before passing- such order of cancellation no opportunity of hearing was given to them. The Supreme Court held that "it is well settled that no order to the detriment of the appellants could be passed without complying with the rules of natural justice" and accordingly the order of cancellation of the appointments was set aside only on that short ground. In this case the petitioner worked as Ferro Machine operator for a number of years when he was a peon and when the department asked other persons from the office, they all refused except the petitioner. Hence, he was appointed on the post of Ferro Machine Operator. He continued to work on that post for a period of three years, but by a subsequent order, respondent No. 2 made his appointment on temporary basis for a period of 3 months and before that period of 3 months expired, the petitioner came to be reverted. The action of the respondent No. 2 in passing the impugned order is against the law. The action of the respondent No. 2 in passing the impugned order is against the law. In my opinion, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha (Supra ). It is true that the Division bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1447 of 1976 has taken a view that if the promotion is provisional, then before reverting no opportunity is required to be given. But it has no application in the facts of the present case. As stated earlier, the petitioners promotion was on permanent basis, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be heard before passing any order of reversion, which great financial loss to the petitioner. Therefore, the submission made by Ms. Doshit that the order of. reversion passed by the respondent No. 1 is an administrative decision and for that no opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner has to be rejected. ( 5 ) NEXT submission made by Ms. Doshit was that the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite qualifications, therefore, he could not have been continued on the post of Ferro machine Operator, and, therefore, he was rightly reverted. The said submission does not lie in the mouth of the respondents. In the facts of the present case, it is clear from the respondents affidavit that the Department had asked other persons working in the office, but nobody from the office was willing to work as a Ferro Machine Operator and only the petitioner, who had experience of Ferro Machine Operator for number of years shown his willingness to be appointed as Ferro Machine Operator and therefore, he was appointed as ferro Machine Operator. He accordingly worked for more than three years thereafter. It is also important to note that from their own affidavit-in-reply it is clear that as they could not get suitable candidate through the Employment Exchange as a last resort they gave the advertisement in the local newspaper and only thereafter they were able to select the persons for the appointment to the post of Ferro Machine Operator. Now, the question is that if the petitioner had refused to work as Ferro Machine Operator when the post of ferro Machine Operator fell vacant in the year 1978, then who would have worked as ferro Machine Operator? Now, the question is that if the petitioner had refused to work as Ferro Machine Operator when the post of ferro Machine Operator fell vacant in the year 1978, then who would have worked as ferro Machine Operator? The work of the department would have suffered in absence of any person available for that work. After taking work from the petitioner as Ferro machine Operator for all these years it was highly improper for the respondents to revert the petitioner unceremoniously. When the petitioner was appointed by an order dated 29. 11. 1978, the respondent No. 1 was aware that the petitioner was not having requisite qualification to be appointed as Ferro Machine Operator. The qualification which the petitioner was lacking, was that he had not studied upto 10th standard, but upto 7th standard only. Except that petitioner was having all other qualifications to be appointed on the post of Ferro Machine Operator. In fact, it appears that after appointing the petitioner as Ferro Machine Operator, the respondent No. 1 requested the Government to regularise his appointment by relaxing that qualification. Unfortunately, in the case of the petitioner the Government has not agreed for relaxation. Ms. Doshit submitted that relaxation can be done in the public interest only and no public interest was involved in this case. When the Government wants to do anything in the name of public interest it will do it. But, it has not done in the case of the present petitioner only because he was class-IV servant serving as a Peon. I fail to understand how it can be said that it was not in the public interest to relax the qualification in the case of the petitioner. In fact, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was very much necessary in the public interest to relax the qualification particularly because a person belonging to Class-IV offered his services and worked as Ferro Machine Operator for number of years and when no one was ready to work as Ferro Machine Operator even on regular basis it was the petitioner who had shown his willingness to be appointed as Ferro Machine Operator and he worked for more than 3 years most satisfactorily on that post. It was open to the authorities in 1978 to resort to public advertisement and select the candidate for the post of F. M. O. when they were not getting suitable candidate from Exployment Exchange. But, after appointing the petitioner on the post of F. M. O. on regular basis in 1978 and when government refused to relax the qualification to make him appointment ad hoc and temporary and then to revert the petitioner on the post of peon is nothing but an arbitrary action which cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has clearly stated that other persons working as Ferro Machine operators at Surat, Rajkot and Baroda were lacking requisite qualifications, but they are continued and only the petitioner has been reverted to the post of peon. Therefore, the impugned reversion order is in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india. Ms. Doshit, however, tried to resist the submission of Mr. Nanavati by saying that vague allegation has been made in the petition by the petitioner as the details regarding the names of the persons, who are working as Ferro Machine Operators at Surat, Rajkot and Baroda have not been given and, therefore, they have not dealt with it in the reply affidavit When the averment made on oath in the petition remained uncontroverted, it has to be accepted. Merely because the names of the persons, working on the post of F. M. O. at different places are not given, it would not absolve the respondents from meeting with the contention of the petitioner. Name of the places where persons were working as f. M. O. have been given in the petition. Therefore, nothing would have prevented the respondents from finding out whether they had requisite qualifications or not. ( 7 ) BEFORE passing the operative order, I must deal with the last submission made by ms. Doshit that what relief should be granted to the petitioner. Ms. Doshit submitted that as the petitioner was not having requisite qualification, he was reverted and, therefore, this court cannot direct the respondents to reinstate such person as Ferro Machine operator. She submitted that at the most notice pay can be given to the petitioner and nothing more. She further submitted that the respondents must be given liberty to revert the petitioner after giving him notice as he is not having requisite qualification. She submitted that at the most notice pay can be given to the petitioner and nothing more. She further submitted that the respondents must be given liberty to revert the petitioner after giving him notice as he is not having requisite qualification. If the petition has to be allowed and the impugned order of reversion has to be quashed and set aside, then the reliefs which have to be granted to the petitioner is of reinstatement with difference in salary of Peon and Ferro Machine Operator. In ordinary circumstances, I would have given the liberty to the respondents to pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. But, after a period of more than eleven years, I do not think it fit to give that opportunity to the respondents and to pass an appropriate order of reversion after giving an opportunity of hearing, particularly when the respondents had continued other persons as Ferro Machine Operators at different places, who were also not having requisite qualifications to be appointed on the post of Ferro machine Operator and when the petitioner had worked as Ferro Machine Operator for many years when no one was ready to work as Ferro Machine Operator. Therefore, this matter must rest here. ( 8 ) IN view of the above discussion, this petition has to be allowed. However, Ms. Doshit submitted that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner and this petition, though filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is in fact a petition under article 227 of the Constitution and no error apparent on the face of the record is committed in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner nor any error of law is committed by the Tribunal and, therefore, this Court should dismiss the petition of the petitioner. I am afraid I can not accept the submission made by Ms. Doshit. Once it is found that the impugned order of reversion is bad, then there is no need to consider the order passed by the learned Tribunal in Appeal. If the impugned order passed by respondent-authority is found to be in violation of principle of natural justice, there is no need for this court to consider the order of the learned Tribunal passed in Appeal against the petitioner. If the impugned order passed by respondent-authority is found to be in violation of principle of natural justice, there is no need for this court to consider the order of the learned Tribunal passed in Appeal against the petitioner. Even if i was required to consider the legality and validity of the order passed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the petitioner, then I would have held that the order passed by the Tribunal is bad in law and illegal and quashed and set aside the same. Because, unfortunately the learned Tribunal has not considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the above discussion and dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner. If the Tribunal had considered the case of the petitioner properly, it would have allowed the appeal of the petitioner as the impugned order of reversion passed against the petitioner was not only in clear violation of principles of natural justice but also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal, if it is required to be quashed and set aside in this petition, then I set aside the same. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of reversion dated 10-6-81 (Annexure "b") reverting the petitioner from the post of Ferro Machine operator to the post of Peon is set aside. Respondent Nos. l and 2 are directed to immediately appoint the petitioner on the post of Ferro Machine Operator and to give difference of salary from 10-6-81 the day on which the impugned order (Annexure "b") came to be passed till the petitioner is reinstated on the post of Ferro Machine Operator. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are further directed to give all other consequential benefits of service to the petitioner as if the impugned order of reversion was never passed against the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall carry out this order within two months from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs. ( 10 ) AT this stage, Ms. Doshit, learned A. G. P. , requested that two months time may be granted to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the order of this court not from today but from the date of the receipt of the order of the Court. Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs. ( 10 ) AT this stage, Ms. Doshit, learned A. G. P. , requested that two months time may be granted to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the order of this court not from today but from the date of the receipt of the order of the Court. This order is pronounced in the presence of Ms. Doshit, learned A. G. P. , appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot say that they will implement the order only after it is received by them. They are duly represented through their Attorney Ms. Doshit before this Court. This approach of the authority is not a correct approach. It is nothing but a delaying tactic to deny the benefits of the order to the petitioner for a longer period. When they want to pass an order, they will not wait for a minute. They will pass and serve the order immediately. They will not even follow the principle of natural justice. But, when the question of implementing the order of the Court arises, all sorts of attempts are made to delay the implementation of the judicial order of the Court, which cannot be permitted. Therefore, as directed above, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall carry out the direction within two months from today, failing which they will have to suffer serious consequences of not obeying the order of the Court. ( 11 ) AT this stage, Mr. V. H. Patel for Mr. H. L. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3, submitted that for no fault of him, he is likely to suffer and though he has put on service of more than eleven years, of course on ad hoc and purely temporary basis as per the interim order of this court, the respondent No. 3 is likely to loss his job. Therefore, suitable observations may be made by this court to protect his service. On 19-4-82 while admitting this petition, this court directed that the person appointed in place of the petitioner would not be confirmed and his appointment shall be treated as ad hoc till final hearing and disposal of this petition and, therefore, his appointment continued as ad hoc and on temporary basis. But, by this time, he has already put on more than eleven years service. But, by this time, he has already put on more than eleven years service. If, by virtue of this order, the respondents-authorities have to revert or relieve any person working as Ferro Machine Operator, then it goes without saying that the junior most person working on the post of Ferro Machine Operator has to be reverted or relieved. I am sure that respondents-authorities will consider the case of respondent no. 3 before passing any order adverse to him, considering the long standing service of eleven years of the respondent No. 3. .