JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, Acting C.J. 1. Order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (in short, the 'Tribunal') directing that the opp. party No. 1, who was applicant before the Tribunal, shall be restored to the officiating post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police from the date he was reverted and then deputed for the Assistant Sub-Inspector course of training, is under challenge in this writ application by the State Government. 2. Subash Chandra Padhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') had filed a petition u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short, the 'Act'). He had questioned his alleged reversion from the post of A.S.I, of Police to the substantive post of Constable. Prayer was to direct the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Orissa to allow him to work as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police with all consequential service benefits, to quash the proceedings of the Central Selection Board and to direct him to send him for A.S.I's training and posting as A.S.I, with retrospective effect along with financial benefits. 3. Factual position is almost undisputed and is essentially as follows: Subash, a non-Matriculate'joined Government service as a Police Constable in Phulbani district. He received Constable training at the Police Training College. Angul from 11.11.1972 to 18.8.1973. On the basis of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him involving breach of Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959 (in short, 'Rules') he was removed from service on 1.8.1975. On appeal, D.I.G. of Police directed his reinstatement in service with reduction of penalty to forfeiture of increments of two years without cumulative effect, carrying the value of three black marks and the said order was communicated by D.O. dated 21.4.1977. He was then allowed to appear at an interview for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 26.5.1 978, but was not successful. Again he appeared at an interview on 22.4.1979 and was again unsuccessful. Again he appeared at an interview on 18.2.1980 and though he passed in the written test, he was not sent for the A.S.I.'s training, but he was allowed to officiate as A.S.I. of Police from 1 6.12.1979 to 8.1.1 980 and from 21.5.1980 to 4.5.1980. He was, again promoted to the rank of A.S.I. on officiating basis on 4.3.1984 until further orders and he joined the post on 14.3.1984. He was, again promoted to the rank of A.S.I. on officiating basis on 4.3.1984 until further orders and he joined the post on 14.3.1984. While officiating as A.S.I, of Police, he was ordered to temporarily officiate as S.I. of Police from 27.11.1984 to 26.1 2.1 984. By order dated.4.11.1 988, which was impugned before the Tribunal he was reverted from the officiating post of A.S.I. of Police to the substantive cost of constable. 4. Stand of the State Government before the Tribunal was that the applicant was allowed to officiate as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police for less than one month on two occasions for Lok Sabha and Assembly Flections only to meet the urgent administrative exigencies. Though he passed the written test for the post of A.S.I. held on 1 8.2.1980..he. was not nominated for promotion to the rank of A.S.I. by either the Superintendent of Police or the D.I.G. of the concerned Range because of his bad record of service. The Central Selection Board also did not clear his case as he had received three black marks and a censure for misconduct. Record of applicant Subash was also not good. That is how the applicant Subash was not deputed for A.S.I.'s course of training. Subsequently he was allowed to officiate on ad hoc basis on leave vacancy. 5. The Tribunal observed that the reversion from one rank to another always involves degradation to a lower rank i.e., from the rank from which one was promoted. It is reversion simpliciter arising out of administrative reasons, it does not attract critical judicial noting. It was observed that apart from the short officiating arrangements by way of allowing the applicant Subash to work as A.S.I, in connection with election work, i.e.. from 16.12.1979 to 8.1.1980 and from 21.5.1980 to 4.6.1980. he was given an officiating promotion, to the rank of A.S.I. of Police in March. 1984 until further orders and while continuing as such he was given further officiating promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police from 27.11.1984 to 26.12.1984 again on account of exigencies of election work. His reversion from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police from 1.11.1988 was on account of his non-selection by the Central Selection Board for undergoing A.S.I.'s course training which was because of his bad service records. His reversion from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police from 1.11.1988 was on account of his non-selection by the Central Selection Board for undergoing A.S.I.'s course training which was because of his bad service records. It was observed that the reversion was after more than 8 1/2 years of offieiation and no meeting of Central Selection Board seems to have been held between October, 1980 and October, 1988 or even if held, the case of the applicant Subash does not Seem to have been considered. Had his case been considered, the C.C.R. entries recorded five years ago. would not have weighed for and would not have resulted in the reversion, as those adverse entries constituted the foundation of reversion. It was, therefore, observed that the reversion of the applicant by. way of punishment involved a reduction in rank. Rule 660(c) of the Police Manual (in short, the Manual') provides that the Constables; who are declared to have passed the written test will be eligible for deputation for A.S.I.'s course of training subject to the condition that their records are satisfactory and they are not considered otherwise unsuitable. The name of the applicant was not sponsored for A.S.I.'s course of training because his records were not satisfactory and he was not otherwise found suitable. The black marks and censure were on account of his misconduct in contracting a second marriage without permission of the competent authority for which he was removed from service, and in appeal it was reduced to three black remarks. The Tribunal further held that had the applicant been deputed for the same course of training during the officiating period from March. 1984 to October, 1988 he would have perhaps successfully completed the course and would not have faced the eventuality of reversion. Therefore, it was held that non-consideration and non-deputation of the applicant for the A.S.I.'s course of training was bad. Accordingly, the order as indicated above was passed. 6. Learned counsel for State submitted that the approach of the Tribunal is erroneous and much emphasis appears to have been hud on the officiating postings for small spells. It is, further, submitted that the applicant Subash was not selected by the Central Selection Board and therefore, the question of reversion as a penalty does not arise. 6. Learned counsel for State submitted that the approach of the Tribunal is erroneous and much emphasis appears to have been hud on the officiating postings for small spells. It is, further, submitted that the applicant Subash was not selected by the Central Selection Board and therefore, the question of reversion as a penalty does not arise. Further, there was no question of reversion as there was no promotion to the substantive post, and merely because the applicant was allowed to officiate temporarily for some time is of no consequence. 7. As the controversy primarily centres round Rule 660(c) of the Manual, same need to be quoted. It reads as follows : "Rule 660. (a)......... (b)............... (c) The selection of both Matric and Non-Matric constables eligible under the conditions laid down in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-rule (a) will be made by means of a written test which will ordinarily consist of law and rules and ability to write an essay in English. The marks for each subject and the time to be allowed for each will be prescribed by the I.G. of Police. The examination will be held centrally at a place or places as may be decided by the I.G. of Police. The answer papers will be valued by examiner/examiners under a head examiner selected by the I.G. of Police soon after the examination at a place or places decided by the I.G. of Police, Rs. 30 (Rupees thirty) will be paid as honorarium for setting each question paper and Re. 1 (Rupee one) only for valuing each answer paper. Matric/Non-Matric constables who are declared passed in the above examination will be eligible for nomination for deputation to the A.S.I.'s course of training by the S.P./Heads of Estt. subject to the condition that their records are satisfactory and they are not considered otherwise unsuitable. The nomination rolls should be arranged according to seniority and sent to the I.G. of Police along with service records through the Range D.I.G. of Police who will record his remarks about suitability or otherwise in each case. subject to the condition that their records are satisfactory and they are not considered otherwise unsuitable. The nomination rolls should be arranged according to seniority and sent to the I.G. of Police along with service records through the Range D.I.G. of Police who will record his remarks about suitability or otherwise in each case. The records of candidates both nominated and not nominated will be scrutinised by a Board consisting of a D.I.G. and 2 Ss.P. to be nominated by the I.G. of Police and the list of candidates to be sent for the A.S.I.'s course of training be drawn up by the Board for approval by the I.G. of Police." 8. As the applicant Subash was allowed to officiate for some period, there was no question of promotion to the substantive post. That being the position and the requirement of Rule 660 (c) having not been fulfilled, there is nothing wrong in the order of reversion to the substantive post. The Tribunal appears to have proceeded on the premises that had the applicant been deputed for the training course during the officiating period, he would have successfully completed the course. Such a conclusion is merely presumptive, surmise and without any foundation. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in giving direction as impugned by the State. The order which was impugned before the Tribunal is not defeasible. The writ application is allowed. No costs. B.P. Das, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed