Judgment 1. This appeal raises two issues. One is about the appellant reverting to his parent department and the other is promotion on the post which he could not hold. 2. In so far as the second aspect is concerned, it is on record that persons junior to the appellant had been given promotion notwithstanding that the cadre had been amalgamated in pursuance of the Assistants of the Secretariat and Attached Offices Joint Cadre Act, 1989. The cadre, in context, was amalgamated with effect from 30th August, 1988. If juniors to the appellant and similarly situated had been given promotion, there is hardly any occasion to deny promotion to the appellant. 3. Further, in so far as the appellant is concerned, the law shows that throughout his service the State respondent had been giving him officiating promotion and a paper promotion. These are matters of record. 4. This court fails to understand as to how a government servant can be kept, throughout his career, on an officiating promotion with a "paper promotion". The only promotion which the petitioner may not hold is one on which he may not be qualified. In the context of this case, it is the post of a Deputy Collector which admittedly the appellant could not hold as he had not passed the departmental examination. But rightly or wrongly the respondents themselves made himself a Deputy Collector and continued him on this post. If he could not hold the post of the Deputy Collector substantively, the appellant could certainly hold the post, which was below this one, i.e., the post of a Registrar. Nothing can restrain the appellant receiving his emolument on this post and the fact that he seeks reversion to his parent department is an aspect, which is irrelevant for the simple reason that the appellant retired in 1997 and the whole exercise would be a paper transaction. If the respondent can give a "paper promotion", they can do administrative justice now by granting relief ex-post facto as a paper transaction. 5. Thus, the appellant is entitled to promotion which his junior received at the appropriate time when it was due to him. Further he is also entitled to ex post facto reversion to his department and the consequential post. 6. The appeal is allowed and the order dated 14.3.1997 is set aside.