JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri L.P. Singh, 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, 1998 with Roll No. 23127 by the U.P. Public Service Commission. At the time of interviews he had given several preferences including the post of Khandsari Inspector. He was, however, selected and appointed as Executive Officer, Class-IV in local bodies on probation for two years by appointment letter dated 19.2.2001 and was allowed to take charge. Since, thereafter, he is serving as Executive Officer in Nagar Palika Parishad and on the date of filing of this writ petition he was serving as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Atarra, Banda after completing probationary period. 3. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.4.2005 passed by the State Government appointing him on the post of Khandsari Inspector. 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. By this order the High Court had quashed the government orders by which the preparation of waiting list and reshuffling was stopped. A special appeal against the judgment is pending but there is no interim orders. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that he has settled himself on the post of Executive Officer and does not wish to join as Khandsari Inspector, even if he had given the choice in preference to the post of Executive Officer at the time of interviews. 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. 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 present case the petitioner joined in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 19.2.2001. He has completed two years and is serving as Executive Officer in Nagar Palika Parishad. Even if reshuffling was permitted, he should not have been taken by surprise after a period of four years and asked to join Khandsari Inspector to which he represented and refused. 7. He has completed two years and is serving as Executive Officer in Nagar Palika Parishad. Even if reshuffling was permitted, he should not have been taken by surprise after a period of four years and asked to join Khandsari Inspector to which he represented and refused. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by Shri M.A. Qadeer on behalf of the Commission it is stated that the waiting list and the reshuffling was stopped by Government Order dated 15.11.1999. This Court, however, in Triloki Nath Misra’s case quashed the government orders. The special appeal against the order is pending but there is no interim order. In the meantime, some of the persons filed contempt petitions on account of which the reshuffling process was started and that post of the petitioner was changed from Executive Officer, Grade-II to Khandsari Inspector due to his merit and higher preference on the basis of recommendation of the Commission and thus the appointment letter dated 29.4.2005 was issued to the petitioner. 8. A person selected and serving in a department acquires specialised knowledge and gains a seniority. Certain advantages may be attached to the particular branch of service. An order by which he has been asked to join as Khandsari Inspector, after four years without giving him any opportunity of hearing is not only violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but is also violative of principles of natural justice. 9. We are of the opinion that the exercise of reshuffling after a reasonable period have passed should not be permitted. 10. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.4.2005 is quashed. ————