ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Appu, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed off. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the petition dated 4.4.2002 (Annexure 4) by which his promotion, granted on 11.8.1997, to the post of Surveyor (Mines) (Grade "A") was cancelled and he was reverted to his original post, i.e., Deputy Surveyor (Mines) (Grade B). 3. Upon a perusal of the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 4, it is evident that the reasons for passing the aforementioned order are as follows : That the promotion from Grade B to Grade A was granted in violation of circular dated 9/17.1.1991, which, inter alia, laid down that such promotion can be given only at the Company level whereas the petitioner was promoted to the post of Surveyor (Mines) (Grade A) on the basis of a Departmental Promotion, Committee held in Kuju Area. It was in that context that the order of promotion was cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as no notice was given to the petitioner prior to the issuance thereof Mr. P.K. Appu was not able to dispute the said submission nor any statement has been made in the counter affidavit to the effect that any notice was given to the petitioner prior to the issuance of he impugned order. This Court is, therefore, left with no option but to quash the impugned order dated 4/6.5.2002 as contained in Annexure 4 by which the promotion granted to the petitioner to Grade A was cancelled. 5. The other reason that also goes in favour of the petitioner is a document brought on record by the writ petitioner vide a supplementary affidavit containing a letter dated 24.8.2002. It is a list of Surveyors and SI. No. 22 thereof shows the inclusion of the name of one Sandipan Roy who was promoted on 22.7.1998 from the N.K. Dakra Area which is a Project/Area and it cannot be said that it was a promotion on the Company level. Moreover, the circular dated 9/17.1.1991 has been brought on record by the respondentsIn their counter affidavit which has been marked as Annexure 4 (although described in-the body of the counter affidavit as Annexure D). Moreover, the circular dated 9/17.1.1991 has been brought on record by the respondentsIn their counter affidavit which has been marked as Annexure 4 (although described in-the body of the counter affidavit as Annexure D). This document shows that for purposes of promotion of employees coming into various grades including Grade B, the authority to grant promotion will be the Company and that for such grade no promotion could be made at the area level. This circular of 1991 must be deemed to have lost its enforceability because an office memorandum was brought into existence one year thereafter, i.e., 19.9.1992 and which has been brought on record vide Annexure 7 appended to the petitioners reply to the counter affidavit in which it has, inter alia, been laid down that for promotion to the post of Surveyor (Mines) in the T & S Grade A post, it. should be through a Departmental Promotion Committee and that the Chief General Manager/General Mangers Areas were to consider the cases of those employees who were in possession of Surveyors Certificate etc. In other words by reasons of this subsequent document, the Chief General Managers and General Mangers of the Area were directed to constitute Departmental Promotion Committee. Thus, this Office Memorandum, having been circulated and or brought into effect almost one year after the 1991 circular, must be deemed to have taken away the operative effect of the earlier circular and therefore, in the year 1997 it must be deemed that it was the 1992 circular that was in force. 6. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition must succeed and it is accordingly allowed to do so. Accordingly the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the observations made herein together with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. There shall however be no order as to costs.