JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order dated 3.1.94 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this special appeal are that the petitioner appellant was initially appointed as Conductor on 30.4.70. Thereafter, on 16.9.88, Departmental Promotion Committee selected the petitioner for the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, but the order of promotion was withdrawn on 23.11.90 and he was reverted back to the post of Conductor. This Court in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 4989/90 filed by petitioner challenging the order of his reversion, on the ground that the order was passed without intimation to him, quashed the impugned reversion order by its order dated 27.1.1993 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner after giving him the notice and to pass a fresh order. By the order dated 27.1.1993 two more writ petitions filed by Arjun Singh and Bhanwar Singh bearing Nos. 260/90 and 259/90 respectively were decided observing that while disposing of the case of the petitioner (Rikhab Raj), the case of Arjun Singh and Bhanwar Singh may, also, be considered in accordance with law as they claimed themselves to be senior to the petitioner. In compliance of the decision of this Court, the respondents served a notice to show-cause on the petitioner to which the petitioner filed a reply, and the Managing Director of the Corporation reverted the petitioner vide order dated 25.6.1993 (Ann. 5) to the post of Conductor and posting him at the Jodhpur Depot. Dissatisfied with the order Anx. 5 dated 25.6.93, the petitioner approached the Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 contending that in the absence of there being any provision, no person selected by a properly constituted D.P.C. can be reverted. It was also contended that merely because some of the seniors were not selected, that cannot be made a ground for the reversion of the petitioner and in the alternative it was prayed that the case of the petitioner may be remanded back to consider his case as 50 posts of ATC which are lying vacant. Notice to show-cause was issued and Mr. Notice to show-cause was issued and Mr. Munshi had put in appearance and also filed reply stating that the case of the petitioner was wrongly considered by mistake at the initial stage by considering the petitioner to be the appointee of 30.4.69 when infact he was appointee of 30.4.70 and no person appointed after 30.4.69 was considered and recommended by D.P.C. for promotion. Alongwith the reply respondents in support of their contention also filed an additional affidavit. The learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material on record including the proceedings of D.P.C. and other relevant papers including chart prepared by respondent for consideration of the case of eligible candidates for promotion was satisfied with the explanation of the respondents that the case of the petitioner was wrongly considered, so also with the reply of the respondents that the juniors were not considered and further that no person who was appointed later than 30.4.69 was considered for promotion and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.1.1994, the petitioner has preferred this special appeal. 3. Mr. Bhoot, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering that the petitioner was considered by D.P.C. as an appointee of 30.4.70 and correction in chart submitted to D.P.C. in the date of appointment of petitioner from 30.4.70 to 30.4.69 suffers from unexplained interpolation. Hence, it cannot be said that it was a case of considering the case of petitioner by mistake. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge committed error of law that the decision of the earlier D.P.C. can be reviewed by another D.P.C. has relied on V. Kameshwari v. U.O.I, 1993(2) SCC 407 : 1993(2) SCT 120 (SC) and Bhupal Singh v. State, 1988(2) RLW 426. 4. Mr. Munshi, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the promotion was given on the basis of wrong facts which was rightly withdrawn and the D.P.C. convened later on in pursuance of High Court order has only corrected his mistake incurred due to typographical error for which the D.P.C. is competent and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. He has relied on Dr. He has relied on Dr. P.S. Gehlot v. State of Raj, 1977 WLC (UC) 385 and District Collector and Chairman v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990)3 SCC 655 . 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the case law cited at Bar. We have also perused the original file of the D.P.C. which was produced by Shri Munshi on 24.1.94 in pursuance on the direction of this Court on 12.1.94. 6. Though the petitioner-appellant has not filed initial appointment order with the writ petition but has made averment that he was appointed as Conductor in services of the respondent on 30.4.70. The D.P.C. held on 16.9.88 considered the case of the petitioner treating him to be a appointee on 30.4.69 as shown in the seniority list at S.No. 126 and while re-considering his case as per the orders of this Court the D.P.C. has withdrawn its earlier order, as the case of the petitioner could not be considered under seniority-cum-merit by the D.P.C. and his case was considered earlier under wrong assumption, therefore, argument of Mr. Bhoot is not sustainable that the petitioner was considered even on the basis of his appointment on 30.4.70. Regarding non-consideration of the additional affidavit even when reply was filed that, who changed the date of appointment of the petitioner in the chart from 30.4.69 to 30.4.70 is not within the knowledge of the R.S.R.T.C. will not help. The argument that who did over-writing is not relevant at this stage. Undisputedly the petitioner was initially appointed on 30.4.70. From record of D.P.C. it is apparent that no person in general category, who was appointed after 30.4.69 was considered. Petitioner was considered as appointee on 30.4.69. It is also clear from seniority list placed for our perusal along with proceedings of D.P.C. that petitioner's date of appointment in that was wrongly mentioned as 30.4.69. His was the last name approved. None of the persons appointed after 30.4.69 was considered by the D.P.C. held on 16.9.88. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the explanation put forward by the respondents that on account of typographical error, the case of the petitioner was considered on wrong assumption. His was the last name approved. None of the persons appointed after 30.4.69 was considered by the D.P.C. held on 16.9.88. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the explanation put forward by the respondents that on account of typographical error, the case of the petitioner was considered on wrong assumption. We have also perused the original file containing the proceedings of the D.P.C. and we also find that none of the juniors to the petitioners were considered except the candidates of SC/ST to which the petitioner does not belong. In view of this, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the error committed by the respondent while preparing seniority list showing his initial date of appointment as 30.4.69 which as a matter of fact is 30.4.70, and in the given facts of the case, the cases cited by Mr. Bhoot are not helpful. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition and no valid reason has been shown by the appellant to persuade us to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******