Judgment Mohammad Rafiq, J.-The petitioner who is working with the Municipal Board, Khetri has filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the respondent board may be directed not to revert him from the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector to the post of Sub-Nakedar and the respondent board may further be directed to regularize his services on the aforesaid post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector with due benefit from the year 1981 as the petitioner not only possess requisite qualification but also possess experience for the said post. 2. According to the averments made in the memo of the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1973 on the post of Naka Guard and was promoted to the post of Sub-Nakedar in the year 1977. However, the petitioner was required to work on the post of Sanitary Inspector in the year 1980 and was formally asked to take charge of this post vide order dated 02.03.1981. Charge assumption report dated 10.03.1981 placed on record as Annexure-1 with the writ petition. It appears from this document that one Bhagwati Prasad Saini, who was earlier working as Assistant Sanitary Inspector, was transferred elsewhere. Therefore, the petitioner was required to take charge of his post. It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondent board has sent to him for undertaking the Diploma Course of Sanitary Inspector in the year 1987-1988 vide order dated 01.07.1987 and he was allowed to undertake the said Diploma Course and was also paid salary even during that period from the respondent board. He has been satisfactorily discharging his duties of the said post for last more than a decade. The Chairman of the respondent board thereafter recommended his case for regular appointment on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector by creating one such post vide letter dated 07.02.1992 followed by another letter dated 02.05.1992. Suddenly, however, the respondent Board vide its order dated 29.02.1992 decided to revert the petitioner from the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector to the post of Sub-Nakedar, which is being impugned in the present writ petition. 3. Suddenly, however, the respondent Board vide its order dated 29.02.1992 decided to revert the petitioner from the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector to the post of Sub-Nakedar, which is being impugned in the present writ petition. 3. The respondents have contested the writ petition and filed a detailed reply, they have stated in their reply to the writ petition that the petitioner was temporarily given the charge of the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector consequent upon the transfer of regular incumbent Shri Bhagwati Prasad Saini, which would be evident from the Annexure-1. He was sent for undergoing diploma course only to ensure that as and when his services are required for sanitation purposes, the same may be availed of by the respondent board. However, it is not necessary that all those who have completed the training course, are required to be appointed on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector. On the contrary, expenses for training course have been incurred by the Board and the petitioner has received advancement of two advance grade increments on that account. It has been stated that letter dated 07.02.1992 issued by the Chairman of the respondent board was not valid letter/order as according to Section 68 (4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), every order issued in the name of and for the board is required to be authenticated by its executive officer. Rule 3(3) of the Rajasthan Municipal Authentication of Document Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) also categorically so provides and, therefore, the Chairman of the Board did not have any legal authority to pass the order in question. Even otherwise, letter dated 21.05.1992 is merely a letter of recommendation and not an order regularizing services of the petitioner. According to the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1963), source of the recruitment for the post of Sanitary Inspector Grade II is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by the promotion and the feeder post for promotion to such is that of Jamadar. The petitioner was originally appointed as Sub-Nakedar and, therefore, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector Grade II as latter post is not avenue of promotion for the former. The petitioner was originally appointed as Sub-Nakedar and, therefore, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector Grade II as latter post is not avenue of promotion for the former. Impugned order dated 29.05.1992 was, therefore, passed in order to rectify the mistake as the earlier order passed was not in accordance to the law. 4. The petitioner in Para No. 6 of the writ petition has stated that the said post was created on the request of the Municipal Board in the year 1992-93. In this para, it has also been stated that pursuant to the creation of the said post, the Municipal Board passed a resolution at Item No. 5(5) to give appointment to the petitioner on this post. In the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents although it has been stated that the Chairman of the Board did not have any authority to authenticate the order issued in the name of and on behalf of the Board as per the provisions contained in Section 68(4) read with Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1974, but the respondents have denied that the Municipal Board while passing the said resolution resolved to promote the petitioner on the post of Sanitary Inspector. It has also been stated that since source of the recruitment for the post of Sanitary Inspector is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion and the feeder post for promotion to such is Jamadar whereas the petitioner was substantively appointed only as Sub-Nakedar. He was, therefore, not eligible for the promotion. 5. A careful examination of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1963 would make it clear that the source of the recruitment for the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector is 50% by promotion from amongst Jamadars and by implication the remaining 50% was left to be filled in by the direct recruitment. The subsequent higher posts are Sanitary Inspector Grade II and Sanitary Inspector Grade I and Chief Sanitary Inspector which are to be filled in by promotion from amongst Assistant Sanitary Inspector, Sanitary Inspector Grade II and Sanitary Inspector Grade I respectively. The subsequent higher posts are Sanitary Inspector Grade II and Sanitary Inspector Grade I and Chief Sanitary Inspector which are to be filled in by promotion from amongst Assistant Sanitary Inspector, Sanitary Inspector Grade II and Sanitary Inspector Grade I respectively. The post in question which is available with the respondent board is that of Sanitary Inspector Grade II and the source of the recruitment for this post as per the Schedule is 100% by promotion and not 50% by direct recruitment as is being argued by the Counsel for the respondents. This post can therefore be filled in only by making promotion and not by direct recruitment. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was sent for the training course under the order of the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board vide Annexure-2 has treated the entire period spent by the petitioner during the aforesaid training course as having been spent on duty. On successful completion of the training course, the petitioner was granted two advance grade increments. During the course of training course, the petitioner was granted stipend. The petitioner was also granted travelling allowances by the respondent Board for going to and coming back from the training course. Subsequently, the order passed by the respondent board dated 29.02.1988, the earlier order dated 01.07.1987 was partially amended and it was provided that the petitioner would be entitled to full salary during the period of the training undertaken by him as per the rules. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner has been allowed to work on the post of Sanitary Inspector by order dated 10.03.1981. Having satisfactorily discharged his duties on the said post for more than a decade, he has acquired a vested right to be continued on the said post. He ought to have been, therefore, given an opportunity of hearing when the respondents decided to revert him to much lower post of Sub-Nakedar. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that reversion order of the petitioner has been passed without assigning any reason, which has violated the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Menka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that reversion order of the petitioner has been passed without assigning any reason, which has violated the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Menka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 . Learned Counsel also submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to passing of impugned order, which resulted in negation of principles of audi alterum partem, therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel has also relied upon a recent Judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and has argued on that basis that a person who was legally appointed and allowed to continue on a particular post for almost ten years should be regularized. 8. On the other hand, Shri Satyavrat Sharma, the learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that promotion order of the petitioner was illegally passed by Chairman of the board, who according to Section 68(4) of the Act of 1959, was not competent to pass such order and also argued that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector. The petitioner was reverted way back on 29.05.1992 to rectify the mistake and no order reinstating the petitioner should now be passed 14 years thereafter particularly when no stay order passed by this Court. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the Counsel for the parties and material available on record. 10. All the orders in question on the basis of the petitioner has claimed his entitlement for promotion on the post of Sanitary Inspector Grade II were passed by the Chairman of the Board and not by the Executive Officer. Section 68(4) read with Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1974 provides that every order issued in the name of and on behalf of the Board is required to be authenticated by its Executive Officer. In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 297(1) read with Section 68 of the Act, the State Government has framed and promulgated the Rajasthan Municipalities Authentication of Documents Rules, 1974. In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 297(1) read with Section 68 of the Act, the State Government has framed and promulgated the Rajasthan Municipalities Authentication of Documents Rules, 1974. Rule 3 of the said Rules clearly provides that the Executive Officer shall authenticate a licence, permission or order passed by the Board or any of its Committees within 7 days from the date of decision. Sub-rule (3) of the said Rules further provides that all correspondence addressed to or meant for the Board shall be sent in the name of the Executive Officer and all correspondence issued or made on behalf of the Board shall be issued under the seal and signature of the Executive Officer. In the face of these provisions of law, the orders promoting the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector/Sanitary Inspector Grade II cannot be taken to have been validity passed. Moreover, the post of Sanitary Inspector Grade II was not a post of direct recruitment, but it was a promotional post. The post of Sub-Nakedar from which the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector is not a feeder post for promotion to the former. Merely because the petitioner was sent to undergo the diploma course of Sanitary Inspector on the expenses of the respondent Board, this cannot entitle the petitioner to claim promotion on the post of Sanitary Inspector Grade II because of the simple reason that he being a Sub-Nakedar was not eligible for promotion. Period for which the petitioner has worked on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector/Sanitary Inspector Grade II, he was paid the scale of that post and additionally as per the averments made in the reply to the writ petition, he was granted two advance grade increments on account of his having completed the diploma course of Sanitary Inspector. He, however, that account cannot be held entitled to promotion on the post of Sanitary Inspector Grade II contrary to and in violating of the Rules of 1963. 11. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 is wholly misconceived because this Judgment does not in any manner help the petitioner. 11. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 is wholly misconceived because this Judgment does not in any manner help the petitioner. In the aforesaid Judgment , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-“A temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules”. (Emphasis supplied) 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held as under:-“The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the Court, which we have described as “litigious employment” in the earlier part of the Judgment , he would not entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service”, (Emphasis supplied) 13. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.