Honble SHETHNA, J.—The petitioner was initially appointed as a Class-IV servant way back on 19.2.62 with the respondent. He is coming from a lower strata of society. After the proficiency test, he was selected and promoted to the post of L.D.C. on 24.12.79. Thereafter, he continuously worked on the post without any hindrance. His service record was good and no mis-conduct was committed by him during his entire his career either as Class-IV employee or as L.D.C. However, on 15th March, 1990 (Ex. 12) the petitioner was issued notice and called upon to show cause as to why he should not be reverted as it had come to the notice of respondent that he was not having requisite qualification and the examination which he has passed was not a recognized by the State Government. He replied to the said show cause notice (Annex.13) on 4.4.90. Thereafter, he filed this petition before this Court. On 12.7.90 this Court granted ex parte stay order which was confirmed in 1994. Thus, the impugned notice (Annex.12) is not implemented so far. (2). Ordinarily, this Court would not entertain a petition at the notice stage. However, in exceptional cases this Court can certainly exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this case falls under that category. The petitioner started his career as a Class-IV employee and worked satisfactorily and promoted in 1979 after due selection on the post of L.D.C. then the authority would not be allowed to revert the petitioner after issuing notice to him after lapse of so many years. even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner was not having requisite qualification then also the respondent has waived it. The principle of waiver would apply in this case. The authority would not be allowed to act after a gross delay of 11 years for reverting the petitioner on the ground that he was not having requisite qualification or the examination which was passed by him, was not recognized by the State Government. Finding a very strong prima facie case, this Court, while admitting this petition, granted stay against the notice way back in 1990 which continued till today. Therefore, the respondents cannot be allowed now to revert the petitioner from his present post after lapse of almost 20 years of his promotion on the post of L.D.C. (3). Finding a very strong prima facie case, this Court, while admitting this petition, granted stay against the notice way back in 1990 which continued till today. Therefore, the respondents cannot be allowed now to revert the petitioner from his present post after lapse of almost 20 years of his promotion on the post of L.D.C. (3). In view of the above, this petition is allowed, the impugned notice at Annex. 12 is hereby quashed and set aside.