Judgment It is stated by the petitioner that he was selected for appointment to the post of Forest Watcher, through the employment exchange, by direct recruitment, on merits and he had joined service on 111. 1989. He was promoted to the post of Forest Guard by an order, dated 2. 1995, passed by the third respondent on the basis of the Division wise seniority, as per the rules, and the orders of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, dated 3. 1994. According to the orders of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, a person promoted to the post of Forest Guard cannot be disturbed to accommodate a candidate from another Division. While so, the fourth respondent was transferred from another circle to the post held by the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner has been reverted from the promoted post for want of vacancy in his division. .2. The petitioner has also stated that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Forest Guard, the division concerned has been taken as a unit, as per the rules. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be reverted for accommodating the fourth respondent, who has been .transferred to the post held by the petitioner from another circle. A person, who is transferred to another circle or division, has to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new division or circle to which he is transferred. Further, such a transfer can be made only when there is a vacancy in the said division and when there is no other person in the post of Forest Ranger in the same division, eligible to be promoted to the post of Forest Guard. No candidate from another division or circle can be accommodated in the vacancy of a different division as it would adversely affect the promotional chances of Forest watchers in the same division. There are clear instructions in this regard issued by the Head of the Department. The instructions are dated 3. 1994 and 6. 1994. Thus, any transfer from one division to the other and the consequent reversion resulting in such transfer are bad in law and therefore, such a transfer is liable to be set aside. Further, since the transfer of the fourth respondent is only based on his request such a transfer is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 1. 1994. 1994 and 6. 1994. Thus, any transfer from one division to the other and the consequent reversion resulting in such transfer are bad in law and therefore, such a transfer is liable to be set aside. Further, since the transfer of the fourth respondent is only based on his request such a transfer is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 1. 1994. The order of transfer of the fourth respondent to the post held by the petitioner is not unconstitutional as it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application in O.A.No.6632 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.25934 of 2006. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras, in C.No.E2/40627/95, dated 7. 1995, had issued instructions to take suitable action to comply with the request of R. Veerabadhran, Forest Guard for transfer from Tiruchy Division to Dharmapuri Division. The Conservator of Forests, Vellore, had submitted a report in C.No.B2/14452/95, dated 20.7.1995, to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras, stating that there was no vacancy of Forest Guard in the Dharmapuri Division. Further, the Conservator of Forests, Vellore, had also insisted that the directions of the Chief Conservator of Forests, (Territorial) in C.No.B2/18103/95, dated 9. 1995, are to be implemented. .4. It has been further stated that since there was no Forest Guard of Dharmapuri Division ripe for transfer to an outside division, as per G.O.Ms.No.10, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 1. 1994, it was not possible to shift any other Forest Guard in Dharmapuri Division so as to accommodate R. Veerabadhran. .Since the request of R. Veerabadhran, Forest Guard, dated 23. 1993, had to be complied with as per the instructions of the higher officials, the petitioner, namely, C. Chennappan, who had been recently promoted as Forest Guard from the post of Reserve Watcher, purely on temporary basis, vide order, dated 2. 1995, had been reverted. 5. It has also been stated that one Dr. V. Prusothaman, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Pennagaram constituency had lodged a written complaint, on 6. 1995, against the petitioner stating that he had indulged in smuggling activities in association with the sandalwood smuggler Veerappan. 6. 1995, had been reverted. 5. It has also been stated that one Dr. V. Prusothaman, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Pennagaram constituency had lodged a written complaint, on 6. 1995, against the petitioner stating that he had indulged in smuggling activities in association with the sandalwood smuggler Veerappan. 6. It has also been stated that the relevant service rules provided for reversion for want of vacancy. Though one unit system had been introduced for promotions in the Forest Department, vide G.O.Ms.No.172, E & F Department, dated 3. 1991, it was relaxed, temporarily, by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras, on 3. 1994, in respect of reserve watchers. Since the transfer of R. Veerabadhran has been made on administrative grounds and as none of the other Forest Guards of Dharmapuri Division could have been transferred to another Division as they were not ripe for such transfer, the petitioner had been reverted by an order, dated 110. 1995, issued by the third respondent. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the order of reversion passed by the third respondent, to accommodate the fourth respondent in the place of the petitioner, is contrary to the directions issued with regard to such transfers and therefore, it is invalid in the eye of law. It is also contrary to the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forth his case before the impugned order was passed by the third respondent. Since the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Forest Guard in order to accommodate the fourth respondent, based on the instructions received from the higher officials, the rules and the orders applicable to the service have not been followed. .8. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the monetary loss caused to the petitioner, due to the reduction in his scale of pay pursuant to the impugned order of reversion issued by the third respondent, is compensated for by a direction issued by this Court to the respondents. 9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Forests), had submitted that the petitioner had been reverted from the post of Forest Guard, in order to accommodate the fourth respondent, based on the directions issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, (Territorial), in Ref.No.DB2/752/95, dated 18. 9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Forests), had submitted that the petitioner had been reverted from the post of Forest Guard, in order to accommodate the fourth respondent, based on the directions issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, (Territorial), in Ref.No.DB2/752/95, dated 18. 1995, and the instructions of the Conservator of Forests, Vellore, in C.No.B2/18103/95, dated 9. 1995. The service rules applicable to the petitioner provide for the reversion of the Junior most person for want of vacancy. Since the petitioner was recently promoted as Forest Guard from the post of Reserve Watcher, purely on temporary basis, he was reverted from the promoted post in order to accommodate the fourth respondent. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the claims made by the petitioner. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the petitioner had been reverted from the post of Forest Guard by the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 110. 1995, only to accommodate the fourth respondent who has been transferred to the said post from another division. No notice was given to the petitioner before he was reverted from the promoted post of Forest Guard to that of Forest Watcher. Even though it has been stated that the promotion granted to the petitioner was of a temporary nature and that he could be revered due to want of vacancy, the respondents ought to have followed the basic principles of natural justice before such an order of reversion was passed, especially, when it involves reduction in the scale of pay of the petitioner. .11. Further, it has been admitted by the respondents that the reversion has been passed based on the directions of the Chief Conservator of Forests, (Territorial), dated 18. 1995, as well as the instructions of the Conservator of Forests (Territorial), dated 9. 1995, in order to accommodate the fourth respondent in the post of Forest Guard in Dharmapuri Division. Therefore, the transfer granted to the fourth respondent and the consequential reversion of the petitioner cannot be said to be purely on administrative grounds. 1995, as well as the instructions of the Conservator of Forests (Territorial), dated 9. 1995, in order to accommodate the fourth respondent in the post of Forest Guard in Dharmapuri Division. Therefore, the transfer granted to the fourth respondent and the consequential reversion of the petitioner cannot be said to be purely on administrative grounds. Further, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has not been in a position to show sufficient cause or reason to sustain the impugned order passed by the third respondent reverting the petitioner from the post of Forest Guard to .that of Forest Watcher. No records had been produced before this Court to show that the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 110. 1995, is bonafide in nature or that it is in accordance with the relevant rules. 12. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 110. 1995, is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pay the difference in the scale of pay that the petitioner would have been eligible for if he had continued in the promoted post of Forest Guard, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is open to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner with regard to the issue of his alleged wrongful promotion, if so advised, in accordance with law, after affording him an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.