JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel and Shri M.A. Qadeer appear for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was selected in the Combined Subordinate Service Examination, 1999 conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission. He had given several preferences for appointment in the services. He was selected and appointed as a Labour Enforcement Officer on probation for two years by appointment letter dated 23.1.2001 and joined on 20.2.2001. Since, thereafter, he is serving as Labour Enforcement Officer. On the date of filing of this writ petition he was serving as Labour Enforcement Officer, Aligarh after completing the probationary period. 3. The petitioner is now aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow to join as Naib Tehsildar. It is contended that reshuffling was done in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Triloki Nath Misra’s case in Writ Petition No.1092 of 2002, which is under challenge in special appeal. The High Court in Triloki Nath’s case had quashed the government orders by which the preparation of waiting list and reshuffling was quashed. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that he has settled himself on the post of Labour Enforcement Officer, and does not wish to join as Naib Tehsildar. 5. In the counter affidavit it is stated that reshuffling was done in pursuance of the orders of this Court in Triloki Nath Misra’s case. The special appeal is pending but there is no interim order. Shri M.A. Qadeer states that a number of contempt petitions were filed in which directions were given and that in pursuance of such direction the U.P. Public Service Commission was compelled to do reshuffling. 6. In the short counter affidavit of Shri B.N. Dixit, Secretary, Personnel Department, Government of U.P. filed on behalf of the State it is stated that a Combined Lower Subordinate Services (Preliminary) Examination, 1998, was advertised on 6.9.1998 for holding preliminary examination. After completing the examination a select list was prepared by the Commission, which was sent to the Personnel Department on 24.6.2000 with a total number of 999 posts, in 33 cadres, in 11 department. After completing the examination a select list was prepared by the Commission, which was sent to the Personnel Department on 24.6.2000 with a total number of 999 posts, in 33 cadres, in 11 department. By office memorandum dated 15.11.1999 the waiting list was not prepared and therefore the Personnel Department did not request the Commission to send any name in place of the selectees, who did not join their respective posts. In Triloki Nath Misra v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 4864 of 2001 and Sumitra Nandan Dwivedi v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 36512 of 2001 the office memorandum dated 15.11.1999 was quashed by judgment dated 17.7.2002 and the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and the State Government were directed to prepare a waiting list in accordance with the office memorandum dated 31.1.1994 to fill up the vacant post within one year i.e. upto 24.6.2001. Aggrieved the State Government filed Special Appeal No. 621 of 2002, which is still pending. A contempt petition was filed in which orders were passed to fill up the vacancies in compliance with the order dated 17.7.2002. Accordingly reshuffling was made and certain persons were required to change their posts in the department. 7. In the present case the petitioner joined in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 23.1.2001. Since then he is serving as Labour Enforcement Officer. Even if reshuffling was permitted, he could not be taken by surprise after a period of four years and asked to join on the post of Naib Tehsildar. 8. In Triloki Nath Misra’s case the Court did not direct reshuffling and to disturb the selection, appointments and the joining of persons. In the operative portion of the judgment the decision of the State Government in the office memorandum dated 15.11.1999 to give up the preparation of waiting list and reshuffling was quashed with directions to prepare a waiting list in accordance with the office memorandum dated 31.1.1994. Further, a direction was issued to calculate the number of vacancies, which could not be filled up, out of original requisitioned vacancies and remained vacant within one year i.e. upto 24.6.2001, and to forward the names of the candidates next to the last recommended candidate for appointment in the Combined Lower Subordinate Service Examination, 1998. The waiting list was to be prepared and appointment orders were to be issued within next one month. 9. The waiting list was to be prepared and appointment orders were to be issued within next one month. 9. There was no such direction issued in the case to reshuffle and to send persons for appointment in different departments according to the number of vacancies on account of fact that persons did not join. 10. A person selected and serving in a department acquires specialised knowledge. Certain advantages may be attached to the particular branch of service. An order by which he has been asked to join as Naib Tehsildar after four years without giving him any opportunity of hearing and changing the department is not only arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India but is also violative of principles of natural justice. the reshuffling after the next selection are advertised and after a long period of time will become a unreasonable exercise of power. 11. The petitioner was selected and joined as Labour Enforcement Officer. He took charge on 20.2.2001 and is serving in the department. He has acquired special knowledge and must have attained seniority with legitimate expectation for further promotion. It is not appropriate at this stage to disturb his position and to compel him to join another department as a Naib Tehsildar. The directions to fill up vacancies, in Triloki Nath Misra’s case did not require the State Government to disturb the settled position and the appointments of persons, who are serving in the department in which they were initially appointed for last many years. 12. Same view was taken by the Court in Santosh Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 40621 of 2008 decided on 12.8.2008. 13. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.2005 is quashed. Petition Allowed. ————