Judgment 1. Heard both the parties. 2. The seed, which culminated in sprouting Annexure-9, was sown by supplying incorrect informations in the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 9447 of 2004. 3. There is no dispute that the 3rd and the 4th Pay Commission Report as accepted by the Government did not make any distinction in between the post of Seed Technicians and Laboratory Assistants. They carried the same salary. At that time, no recruitment rules had been framed which authorised promotion of Laboratory Assistants to the post of Seed Technicians. All through out Seed Technicians carried two separate scales. The higher scale had althrough out been earmarked for agricultural graduates and the lower scale had all through out been earmarked for people other than agricultural graduates. There is no dispute that in order to become Laboratory Assistants, it is not a requirement that the candidate must be an agricultural graduate. There is also no dispute that the petitioners were employeed as Laboratory Assistants. At the same time, there is also no dispute that the petitioners were drafted as Seed Technicians and were granted the lower scale of pay earmarked for Seed Technicians other than agricultural graduates. This was done since in order to complete the work of Seed Technicians more hands were required. Inasmuch as the scale of Laboratory Assistants and the Seed Technicians were at par, there was no difficulty in drafting Laboratory Assistants as Seed Technicians. There being no promotional policy that on promotion Laboratory Assistants would become Seed Technicians, there was no impediment in such drafting. After the petitioners were so drafted and they worked for roughly about 20 years as Seed Technicians and in the meantime, persuaded the Government to grant them a better salary than Laboratory Assistants, one Laboratory Assistant namely, Surendra Prasad filed C.W.J.C. No. 9447 of 2004 contending that the petitioners and similar other persons are junior to him in the substantive post of Laboratory Assistant and they have been made to work in the higher post of Seed Technicians in order to give them better remuneration. In the counter affidavit filed to the said writ petition, the above facts were not brought on record. Instead it was contended in the counter affidavit that juniors to the said petitioner are working on the higher post in the interest of work by way of stop gap arrangement. In the counter affidavit filed to the said writ petition, the above facts were not brought on record. Instead it was contended in the counter affidavit that juniors to the said petitioner are working on the higher post in the interest of work by way of stop gap arrangement. This contention in the said counter affidavit was factually incorrect. The post of Seed Technicians became a higher post long after the petitioners were drafted to the said post. At the time when the petitioners became Seed Technicians and started discharging the duties of Seed Technicians, the post of Seed Technician was not a higher post than the post of Laboratory Assistant. Laboratory Assistant, who did not work as Seed Technician when both the posts carried the same salary should not have been permitted to contend that his juniors have been engaged in a higher post. This wrong submission contained in the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 9447 of 2004 entailed the direction of the Court to do justice and to ensure that juniors do not supersede seniors. In consequence thereof, after issuing a mechanical show cause, by Annexure-9 to the writ petition the petitioners have been reverted back to the post of Laboratory Assistants. This step has been taken ostensibly to comply with the directions contained in the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9447 of 2004. 4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners were drafted in equal posts and made to work in such posts for 20 years, it is impermissible on the part of the State to revert back them to their original post when the post to which they were drafted started getting higher salary by reason of a decision of the Government. It has not been contended in the counter affidavit that the posts of Seed Technicians as sanctioned by the State Government cannot accommodate the petitioners. On the contrary it is apparent from the records that after reversion of one of the petitioners his controlling authority has reported that the said petitioner has been asked to work in a post which is not vacant i.e. the post of Laboratory Assistant. 5. In those circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Annexure-9 to the writ petition is quashed.