A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) at Porbandar on 7th August 1984 in Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 1982 as affirmed in appeal by the learned Assistant Judge of Porbandar on 31st August 1985 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1985 is under challenge in this second appeal at the instance of the original defendant under sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (the Code for brief ). It is needless to say that the Trial Court decreed the suit instituted by the respondent. ( 2 ) THE dispute centres round the reversion of the respondent from the post of Deputy Engineer (M) to that of Junior Engineer by virtue of the order passed on 4th January 1982. He joined panchayat service as a Junior Engineer with effect from 20th May 1969. Thereafter he was selected by the Panchayat Service Selection Commission some time in 1971 and was confirmed from the date of his appointment. Later on he was promoted as a Deputy Engineer (M) with effect from 6th March 1978 It appears that he was promoted on the basis of his seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers. The seniority list for the cadre of Junior Engineers was published on 29th December 1976 and he figured at serial No. 69 therein. It appears that later on the appellant thought that the respondent was given wrongful seniority in the seniority list on the basis of his pre-selection service. Thereupon one circular dated 10th November 1981 was issued for inviting representation from Junior Engineers against refixation of their seniority. A provisional seniority list on the basis of refixed seniority of Junior Engineers accompanied that circular. A copy of the circular together with the provisional seniority list is al Exh. 47 on the record of the case. In that provisional seniority list the respondent figured at serial No. 1 ()9 as against at serial No. 69 in the previous seniority list published on 29th December 1976. It may be mentioned that under the circular at Exh. 47 representations were invited within two months against refixation of seniority of Junior Engineers. However by an order passed on 4th January 1982 the respondent came to be reverted from the post of Deputy Engineer (M) to that of Junior Engineer. It may be mentioned that under the circular at Exh. 47 representations were invited within two months against refixation of seniority of Junior Engineers. However by an order passed on 4th January 1982 the respondent came to be reverted from the post of Deputy Engineer (M) to that of Junior Engineer. The respondent challenged this reversion order by filing a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) at Porbandar. His suit came to be registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 1982 In that suit the present appellant was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and the Gujarat Maritime Board as defendant No. 2 The present appellant as defendant No. 1 filed its written statement al Exh. 28 on the record of the case and resisted the suit on various grounds. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Judge framed the necessary issues at Exh. 33 on the record of the case. After recording evidence and hearing the parties by his decision rendered on 7 August 1984 in Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 1982 the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) at Porbandar decreed the suit instituted by the respondent herein. The reversion order was quashed and set aside. That aggrieved the present appellant. It carried the matter in appeal before the District Court of Junagadh through the Assistant Judge at Porbandar. It came to be registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1985. After hearing the parties by his decision rendered on 31st August 19235 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1985 the learned Assistant Judge of Porbandar dismissed the appeal. The aggrieved appellant has thereupon invoked the further appellant jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 100 of the Code for questioning the correctness of the impugned decision rendered by the lower Appellate Court in appeal as aforesaid. ( 3 ) IT is an admitted position on record that in the seniority list published on 29th December 1976 the respondent figured at serial No. 69 in the cadre of Junior Engineers. On the basis of his such placement in the seniority list he was given promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer (M) with effect from 6th March 1978. On the basis of his such placement in the seniority list he was given promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer (M) with effect from 6th March 1978. That seniority list published on 29th December 1976 was sought to be revised on the basis of the impression that services of certain Junior Engineers prior to their selection by the Panchayat Service Selection Commission were incorrectly for the purpose of fixing their seniority. For that purpose the circular at Exh. 47 was issued. As aforesaid that circular contained the tentative seniority list of Junior Engineers after excluding from consideration the pre-selection service rendered by them. In that provisional seniority list the present respondent figured at serial No. 109. The circular at Exh. 47 invited representations from the affected employees against their revised seniority. The lime-limit set for the purpose was two months. It does not become clear from the record whether or not this circular at Exh. 47 on the record of the case was brought to the notice of the present respondent. In absence of any cogent or convincing evidence on record there is no hesitation in accepting the present respondents version to the effect that no opportunity whatsoever of making representation against refixation of seniority was given to him. Without giving any opportunity of hearing to him against refixation of his seniority by the order passed on 4th January 1982 he came to be reverted from the post of Deputy Engineer (M) to that of Junior Engineer. It is a settled principle of law that no status of a person can be adversely affected without giving him an opportunity of hearing. As aforesaid the status of the present respondent as Deputy Engineer was adversely affected by reverting him to the post of Junior Engineer without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. The order of reversion of the present respondent cannot be sustained in law on this ground alone. ( 4 ) THE circular al Exh. 47 is of 10th November 1981 As pointed out hereinabove the lime-limit of two months was set for the purpose of inviting objections from the affected employees against refixation of their seniority. There is nothing on record to show or to suggest that this circular at Exh. 47 was brought to the notice of the present respondent al any time after it reached the Head of the Department. There is nothing on record to show or to suggest that this circular at Exh. 47 was brought to the notice of the present respondent al any time after it reached the Head of the Department. There is nothing on record to show or to suggest that it was displayed on the notice board for the information of all affected employees. Even assuming for the sake or argument that it was brought to the notice of the present respondent in one or the other manner there is nothing on record to show on what dale it was brought to his notice. It could not have obviously been brought to his notice on the date of the circular itself. Even if it is so assumed its date was 10th November 1981. The time-limit of two months would expire on 9th January 1982. Even before the time-limit for making representation against refixation of his seniority expired by the impugned order passed on 4th January 1982 he came to be reverted. Il thus becomes clear that his reversion was clearly without affording him an opportunity of hearing against such reversion. Such an action on the part of the appellant cannot be sustained in law even for a moment. ( 5 ) SHRI N. N. Pandya for the appellant has urged that what the appellant has done is to correct its error or mistake in counting the pre-selection service of the present respondent for the purpose of fixation of his seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers. On refixation of his seniority according to Shri N. N. Pandya for the appellant the respondent herein went down below in the cadre of Junior Engineers and he deserved no promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer by virtue of his revised seniority. It was in these circumstances according to Shri N. N. Pandya for the appellant the reversion order was passed. It has been emphasised that no opportunity of hearing was necessary for correction of an error or a mistake in granting promotion to the present respondent. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid submission urged before me by Shri N. N. Pandya for the appellant deserves to be stated only to be rejected. It has been emphasised that no opportunity of hearing was necessary for correction of an error or a mistake in granting promotion to the present respondent. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid submission urged before me by Shri N. N. Pandya for the appellant deserves to be stated only to be rejected. The principle in that regard is well-settled by the Supreme Court in its ruling in the case of Divisional Superintendent Eastern Railway Dinapur and others vs. L. N. Kashri and others reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1889 to the effect that even correction of an error or mistake affecting an employee financially can be made only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee. In that case the pay of the concerned employees was stated to be mistakenly fixed at a higher stage in the pay-scale applicable to them. That fixation of pay was sought to be reduced in some other pay-scale made applicable to them. No opportunity of hearing was given to them before ordering reduction of their pay in the pay-scale. In that context the Supreme Court has held that such action could not be taken without giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employees. This ruling of the Supreme Court is obviously binding to this Court. By analogy it will be applicable in the present case. ( 7 ) IN its ruling in the case of S. H. Shirekar vs. Union of India reported in 1985 (1) Services Law Reporter 144 this High Court has also taken the view that the additional salary paid on the promotional post cannot be ordered to be refunded on the ground that promotion was irregularly given without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee. ( 8 ) TO the same effect is the view taken by this Court in its ruling in the case of R. P. Jani vs. Union of India and another reported in 1982 G. L. H. 1102. In that case the name of the petitioner was deleted from the selection panel without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. ( 8 ) TO the same effect is the view taken by this Court in its ruling in the case of R. P. Jani vs. Union of India and another reported in 1982 G. L. H. 1102. In that case the name of the petitioner was deleted from the selection panel without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. In that case it has been held:if the name of the petitioner was to be deleted from the selection panel in fairness to him a hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner or at least an opportunity to point out his version of the matter should have been afforded to the petitioner. Nothing if the sort was done and in an arbitrary fashion his name was ordered to be deleted from the selection panel without giving him any opportunity of hearing his say in the matter. THE aforesaid ruling of this Court in the case of R. P. Jani (supra) is also applicable in the present case. ( 9 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion I am of the opinion that the impugned decree passed by the Trial Court as affirmed in appeal by the lower Appellate Court calls for no interference by this Court in this appeal. ( 10 ) IN the result this appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed with costs. Appeal Dismissed. .