ORDER Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vivek Saran, Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India. 2. Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 9.10.2001, whereby the petitioners representation was rejected. The facts giving rise to the application were that the petitioner was earlier working as Foreman in Military Farm, Meerut and subsequently on abolition of the post of Foreman, he had been reverted to the post of Tractor Driver. This order was challenged before the Tribunal on the ground that there is no justification for abolition of the post of Foreman as the requirement in the Military Farm was there and that he was working on the post of Tractor Driver. 3. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances as brought on record, has held that the post which was held by the petitioner as Foreman in the Military Farm, had been abolished and he had no right to make the claim for his retention on that post. Accordingly, the original application has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us contends that his reversion to the post of “Tractor Driver" was not legally justified and that he could be retained on the post of Foreman in the Military Farm. The Tribunal has, clearly observed in the impugned judgment that since the post was abolished and the petitioner was within the surplus staff in the seniority list, he was offered the post of Tractor Driver. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner had also given his willingness before the concerned authority for reversion to the post of Tractor Driver. From the pleading, it is further clear that the petitioners pay which was being received by him has been saved even after his reversion to the lower post of Tractor Driver. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of S. C. Dhanoa v. Union of India and others, (1991) 3 SCC 567 and Joyachan M. Sebastian v. Director General and others, (1996) 10 SCC 291 , has emphasised that the department has every right to create a new post or abolish the old post as and when it is expedient in the administrative exigency. The Apex Court in the aforesaid cases have very clearly propounded that such abolition of post in the department is within the jurisdiction of such department which has created the said post and if on abolition of a post an employee becomes surplus the employer has right to deal with in the manner as it prefers. 6. In the aforesaid view of the fact and on the facts and circumstances appearing in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, we are not inclined to interfere under extraordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and finding no force in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.