Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-State and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.4.1997 passed in CWJC. No. 2813 of 1996 by which the learned writ court has quashed the order of reversion of the opposite party to the post of a Computer,(which should perhaps be read as a Computator) from that of an Assistant. 3. The contention on behalf of the appellants-State is that initially the opposite party-petitioner was appointed as a Computator. However, from the date of his initial appointment work of an Assistant was being taken from him. By a decision taken by the respondent-State, the Director, Health Services, merged the cadre of Computator to that of Clerk. The opposite party was also confirmed on the aforesaid post. He was also granted junior selection grade. He worked on the aforesaid post for more than 25 years and then subsequently the State found that actually any decision taken in this regard should have been taken by the Director-in-Chief and not by the Director, Health Services, and as such the aforesaid merger itself was cancelled. The petitioner was reverted back to the post of Computator and recovery has been directed to be made. 4. This court taking into consideration the fact that from the initial date of appointment the work of a Clerk was being taken from the opposite party and subsequently in view of the decision of the State authorities, as the cadre was merged, he was confirmed on the post of a Clerk and thereafter was granted promotion, today after 25 years on technicality the State cannot be allowed to turn back and revert the writ petitioner back to the initial post on which he was appointed and further direct for a recovery. It is a fact not disputed that from his date of appointment till date writ petitioner was discharging the duty of a Clerk. Today, he cannot be made to suffer due to lapses, if any, on the part of the State. 5. It is a fact not disputed that from his date of appointment till date writ petitioner was discharging the duty of a Clerk. Today, he cannot be made to suffer due to lapses, if any, on the part of the State. 5. This court does not find any error in the impugned judgment of the learned writ court as admittedly work of a Clerk was being taken from the opposite party on which post he was promoted without any material suppression on his part and as he worked on the aforesaid post for more than 25 years and promotion has already been granted to him, today, the appellants-State cannot turn back and take away the aforesaid promotion. 6. Thus, this letters patent appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.