Dr. J.N. Dubey, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.7.1995 of the respondent no.4, the Officer on Special Duty (Estt.) Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Civil Overseer in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) on 9.5.1980 There were three sanctioned posts of Assistant Engineer in the Corporation, out of which two were to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Civil Overseer and one by direct recruitment. The petitioner filed a representation to the respondent no.1 claiming that he was an engineering graduate and therefore, he should be promoted/absorbed on the post of Assistant Engineer which was allowed on 22.11.1988 and since then he has been working on that post to the satisfaction of all the concerned. On 21.1.1995, the Chief Account Officer (Estt.) to the effect that the post of Assistant Engineer was a gazetted post and therefore, approval of the Board of Directors of the Corporation (for short ‘the Board’) and the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Bihar was required for promotion/absorption/appointment on that post and as no approval from them has been received in the accounts office since 1988, it was not possible to pay the petitioner salary of Assistant Engineer (Civil). It was further stated that if the approval of the said authorities was received by him, the same be made available to him immediately, failing which the salary and allowances for the post of Assistant Engineer paid to the petitioner, would be recovered from him. No approval of the said authorities was made available to the Chief Accounts Officer and, therefore, he started paying salary to the petitioner for the post of Junior Engineer with effect from January 1995. The petitioner filed representation to respondent no.2 on 8.2.1985 but with no result. He filed CWJC No. 353 of 1995 in this Court, but before it could be disposed of, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent no.4 was not legally justified in reverting the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer treating him at par with K.N. Sharna, S.N. Das and Md. Vakil. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent no.4 was not legally justified in reverting the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer treating him at par with K.N. Sharna, S.N. Das and Md. Vakil. According to him, while he was absorbed on the post of Assistant Engineer in anticipation of the approval of the Board, they were merely asked to discharge function of the Assistant Engineer with 12% special pay. 5. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. On 2.5.1959 the Board decided that until the Corporation frames its own regulations under section 45(2) (c) of the State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Rules of Bihar Service Code, the Bihar Travelling Allowance Rules, the Discipline and Appeal Rules, the Conduct Rules, Medical Attendance Rules had similar other rules shall apply mutatis mutandis to all categories officers and staff of the Corporation. Since no regulations have yet been framed by the Corporation under section 45(2) (c) the service of its employees are governed by the Bihar Service Code, the Bihar Travelling Allowance Rules etc. Under Rules, promotion/absorption on the pos to Assistant Engineer (Civil) is made with the approval of the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Bihar and therefore, when the matter of absorption of the petitioner on that post was received by the Chairman cum-Managing Director of the Corporation, he referred it to the Bureau of Public Enterprises on 17.2.1990 for approval. On 14.3.1990, the Bureau of Public Enterprises asked the Corporation to submit necessary proposal in this regard. In November 1994 the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation directed for sending all such cases to the Chairman, Bureau of Public Enterprises. On 21.1.1995, the Chief Accounts Officer put up a note to the respondent no.4 to the effect that if no approval of the Board and the Bureau of Public Enterprises was made available to him immediately, it will not be possible to pay petitioner salary of the Assistant Engineer and that the amount already paid to him shall be recovered. Do his filling writ petition against the aforesaid note in this Court, the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Overseas (now known as Junior Engineer) by the impugned order. 6. Do his filling writ petition against the aforesaid note in this Court, the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Overseas (now known as Junior Engineer) by the impugned order. 6. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Junior Engineer for no fault on his part. Once he was absorbed on the post of Assistant Engineer subject to the approval of the Board, it was the responsibility of the respondents to obtain the necessary approval and they cannot be legally permitted to take advantage of their own in action. The petitioner has been working on the post of Assistant Engineer since 23.9.1988 and was being paid salary for that post. It is not understood as to why the Chief Accounts Officer, all of a sudden, put up the note dated 21.1.1995 to the respondent no.4 after about seven years when neither the Board nor the Bureau of Public Enterprises had declined to accord approval to his absorption on the post of Assistant Engineer. Similarly, it is not understood as to why the Board has decided to revert the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer treating him at par with the other Junior Engineers who were merely asked to discharge the function of Assistant Engineer with 12% special pay. While the petitioner was absorbed on the post of Assistant Engineer for his possessing a graduate degree in Engineering the other junior Engineer were merely asked to function as Assistant Engineer on payment of 12% special pay. The petitioner could not be legally treated at par with other persons who were deprived of the facility of 12 % special pay with effect from 16.11.1994 in pursuance of the resolution of the Board. The resolution dated 15/16the.5.1995 of the Board deciding to revert the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer is patently erroneous. Once the Board had referred the mater to the Bureau of public Enterprises for approval, the presumption was that it had approved the absorption of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer and, therefore, unless the Bureau of Public Enterprises declined to accord approval, the petitioner could not be legally reverted to the post of Junior Engineer. Admittedly, the Bureau of Public Enterprises has not refused to grant approval to the absorption of the petitioner on the post for Assistant Engineer. Admittedly, the Bureau of Public Enterprises has not refused to grant approval to the absorption of the petitioner on the post for Assistant Engineer. Similarly neither the Board has refused to grant approval nor it could legally do so after it had referred the matter to the Bureau of Public Enterprises. From the office order dated 27.5.1991 issued under the signature of the Chief Accounts Officer, it is clear that the salary of the petitioner was fixed in the replacement pay scale of the Assistant Engineer and, therefore, his case was not covered by the resolution dated 16.11.1994 of the Board. 7. The petitioner, who has been working on the post of Assistant Engineer since 23.9.1988 may not be entitled to claim deemed approval in absence of any time frame provided for granting approval by the Board and the Bureau of Public Enterprises, but at the same time he could neither be refused approval after such a along time without any special reason nor could he be reverted to the post of Junior Engineer like the Junior Engineers who were asked to discharge the function of Assistant Engineer on payment of 12% special pay. The fact that the petitioner has been reverted on 13.7.1995 with effect from 16.11.1994 like other three Junior Engineers with reference to resolution dated 15.11.1994 of the Board, shows that the matter of the absorption of the Petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 23.9.1988 was never considered by the respondents. Similarly, the fact that the petitioner was not reverted on 16.11.1994 on the basis of the resolution dated 15.11.1994 of the Board shows that his case was not similar to the persons, who were deprived of the facility of 12% special pay from that date. 8. The impugned order amounts to reversion of the petitioner to the lower rank and as such, it could not be passed with out affording him an opportunity of hearing, which has admittedly not been done in this case. The Board instead of considering the case of the petitioner for granting approval to his absorption on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 23.9.1988 for the reasons best known to it has tried to justify the reduction of his salary on the basis of the note dated 21.1.1995 of the Chief Accounts Officer. The Board instead of considering the case of the petitioner for granting approval to his absorption on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 23.9.1988 for the reasons best known to it has tried to justify the reduction of his salary on the basis of the note dated 21.1.1995 of the Chief Accounts Officer. The impugned order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be quashed. 9. The case of the intervenor, Sheo Kumar Sinha, is quite distinguishable from that of the petitioner and as such, he is not legally entitled to oppose the writ petition. The intervention application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13.7.1995 of the respondent no.4, the Officer on Special Duty (Establishment), Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) is quashed. However, it will be open for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of approval to his absorption on the post of Assistant Engineer Civil afresh in accordance with law. 11. No order as to cost. Petition Allowed.