JUDGMENT M. M. GHILDIYAL, J. : Heard Sri P. C. Jhingan learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as learned standing counsel. 2. This is a review application filed by the petitioner of the order dated 6.3.2003. 3. On 6.3.2003, the petition was dismissed by this Bench. This court held that by impugned order dated 11.2.2003, internal arrangement was made sending the petitioner back to the post of collection peon from the Nazarat from where he was earlier transferred and as such, there is no revision of petitioner by the impugned order. 4. The petitioner in the review application has submitted that the writ petition was dismissed without deciding the same on merit. The contention of the petitioner is not correct. The writ petition was field challenging the order dated 11.2.2003 which is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. By this order the petitioner who was earlier transferred on 4.4.2002 from the post of seasonal collection peon of Nazarat (Establishment) has been sent back in the collection (Establishment) as seasonal peon. 5. The ground taken by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order that the petitioner was not a seasonal collection peon and was working as a collection peon contir1Uously for so many years and as such transferring him in the collection (Establishment) as a collection peon amounts to reversion. 6. It is admitted fact that in the District of Tehri Garhwal where the petitioner is working, no regular post of collection amin is sanctioned. The post of seasonal collection amins are sanctioned in the District of Tehri Garhwal and when there is no post of regular collection amins, there is no question of appointing regular collection peon. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner was appointed as a seasonal collection peon and not as a regular collection peon. The petitioner could not show any document showing that he was ever appointed as regular collection peon. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. By this order, the District Magistrate transferred/appointed the petitioner against the vacant post of forth class in the Nazarat (Establishment) in view of the fact that he has worked for eight years. Learned standing counsel has not denied this order. By this order, the District Magistrate transferred/appointed the petitioner against the vacant post of forth class in the Nazarat (Establishment) in view of the fact that he has worked for eight years. Learned standing counsel has not denied this order. It is true that the petitioner was appointed as . a seasonal collection peon but in view of the fact that he was transferred/appointed against a substantive vacancy of forth class in the Nazarat (Establishment) by the Competent Authority, vide order dated 4.4.2002, thereafter transferring the petitioner by the impugned order dated 11.2.2003 as a seasonal collection peon certainly amounts to reversion. 9. It is well established law that reversion cannot be made without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Once the petitioner was transferred/appointed as a forth Class employee in the regular establishment against the substantive vacancy by the Competent Authority, the order of reversion without any reason and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner is not sustainable. 10. In view of the fact and circumstances, the review application is allowed Order dated 6.3.2003 passed by this court in writ petition no. 131 (S/B) of 2003 is recalled. The writ petition is allowed and order dated 11.2.2003 is quashed. No order to costs.