JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - O.J.C. No. 392 of 1998 arises out of the order; 16.12.1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application No. 474 of 1997 and O.J.C. No. 391 of 1998 also arises out of the order dated 16.12.1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application No. 485 of 1997. Though service particulars of Petitioners in both the cases are different, the point for determination being the same, both were taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. The, Tribunal has passed the main Judgment in O.A. No. 474 of 1997, which has given rise to O.J.C. No. 392 of 1998 and, therefore, the writ application should be dealt with on facts first. The prayer of the Applicant Gopinath Das before the Tribunal was for quashing the order in Annexure-9 attached to the Original Application placing him in Technician-C category with effect from 26.8.1995 with a further prayer to direct the opposite parties to treat him as continuing in Technical Assistant (B) grade and to fix his scale of pay in the said post and also release his arrears with admissible interest. The case of the said Applicant Gopinath Das before the Tribunal is that he was initially called for an interview for the post of Junior Scientific Assistant Grade-II on casual basis and was selected for appointment on casual basis as Junior Scientific Assistant Grade-II by order dated 26.8.1988. It was mentioned in the said appointment letter that he would have no right or claim for any regular absorption to the cadre in future for which other persons may be selected by the Board of Officers. It was also stipulated in the said letter that he would have no right to claim any seniority in case he was selected for absorption against any regular post in future. On 15.7.1989 a notice was published in the employment news inviting applications for appointment to fourteen posts of Junior Scientific Assistants, Grade-II. According to the Applicant Gopinath Das, the essential qualification is B.Sc. with Physics and Mathematics or Higher Secondary with Three-Years Diploma Course in Electronics or Equated Civil Occupation. Having acquired last qualification, i.e. Equated Civil Occupation, he was directed to appear in an interview for such appointment and accordingly he appeared at the interview on 8th and 9th February, 1989. According to the Applicant Gopinath Das, the essential qualification is B.Sc. with Physics and Mathematics or Higher Secondary with Three-Years Diploma Course in Electronics or Equated Civil Occupation. Having acquired last qualification, i.e. Equated Civil Occupation, he was directed to appear in an interview for such appointment and accordingly he appeared at the interview on 8th and 9th February, 1989. He was provisionally selected for the post of Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade-II vide order dated 30.1.1990, but his appointment was a temporary employment for 89 days with similar conditions as stated earlier. He joined as Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade-II with effect from 30th January, 1990. Subsequently, on 4.4.1990 he was also issued with an offer of appointment to the post of Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade-II on a pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040/-. In 1995, Government of India, introduced Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DR & DOTC Rules'). In the said rules different types of posts in Category I and Category II with the scales of pay were mentioned. After the said Rules came into force, an order was passed on 14.12.1995 designating the post held by the Petitioner as Technical Assistant "A", Group "C" with effect from 26.8.1995 in the scale of Rs. 1320-2040/-. On 9.5.1996 he along with similarly placed Officers who were continuing as Technical Assistants "A" were directed to appear before the Assessment Board on 13.5.1996. Result of the Assessment Board was published on 5.6.1996 and ten persons including the Petitioner Gopinath Das were empanelled for promotion to the grade of Technical Assistant "B". The said promotion was to be approved from 1.9.1995 or from the date the delinquent assumes office whichever was earlier. According to the Petitioner, he assumed duties as Technical Assistant "B" in category II with effect from 1.9.1995 and accordingly his option for fixation of pay was called for. While the matter stood thus, he was served with an order on 6.8.1997 reverting him to the post of Technician "C" in Category I, Grade III on the ground that he does not possess the requisite qualification. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application. 3. The Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 391 of 199 was the Applicant before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 485 of 1997. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application. 3. The Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 391 of 199 was the Applicant before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 485 of 1997. The case of the said Petitioner Deleswar Pradhan is that he was initially appointed as Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade-II on 89 days basis with pay of Rs. 1320/- as well as admissible allowances. Similar terms and conditions as in the case of Gopinath Das were also indicated in the appointment letter. This Applicant also appeared in the interview pursuant to the notice published in the employment news dated 15.7.1989 for appointment to the post of Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade-II in the scale of Rs. 1320-2040/-. According to this Petitioner, he was selected, appointed and was also confirmed in the post of Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade-II on the recommendation of the D.P.C. which met on 1.12.1993. After coming into force of DR & DOTC Rules, 1995, he was redesignated as Technical Assistant "A", which carried the same scale of pay. He along with other Officers including the Petitioner in the connected case were directed to appear before the Assessment Board for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant "B". In the said interview he came out successful. But when his appointment to the post of Technical Assistant "B" was pending consideration, the impugned order was passed placing him as Technician "C" in the same scale of pay on 26.8.1995. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal. The order impugned in both the cases being on similar ground, the Tribunal disposed of the case of Gopinath Das first and followed that Judgment in the case of Deleswar Pradhan. 4. The stand of the opposite parties before the Tribunal in both the cases was that Rule 6(5)(a) of the aforesaid DR & DOTC Rules makes it clear that the existing Junior Scientific Assistants, Grade-II are to be placed in Grade-A of Category-II in case they possess the requisite qualification. Those of the existing employees, who do not possess the requisite qualification, are required to be placed in Grade-Ill of Category I. According to Schedule-Ill of the Rules, the prescribed qualification for Technical Assistant "A" is B.Sc. or Three-years Diploma in Engineering or Technology or allied subject. Those of the existing employees, who do not possess the requisite qualification, are required to be placed in Grade-Ill of Category I. According to Schedule-Ill of the Rules, the prescribed qualification for Technical Assistant "A" is B.Sc. or Three-years Diploma in Engineering or Technology or allied subject. According to the opposite parties, Petitioner Gopinath Das was appointed as Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade-11 for possessing Equated Civil Occupation which means that for appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group-C post, a matriculate ex-serviceman including an ex-serviceman who has obtained Indian Army Special Certificate Education or the corresponding certificate in Navy or Air Force and who has put in not less than 15 years of service in the Armed Forces of Union may be considered eligible for appointment to the post for which essential educational qualification is graduation. The essential qualification for Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade-II was B.Sc. with Physics and Mathematics or Higher Secondary with Three-Years Diploma and therefore, even though the Applicant was a matriculate, he was given the chance for applying and was appointed. After coming into force of the DR & DOTC Rules, those persons who do not possess the requisite qualification as prescribed in Schedule-Ill are required to be placed in Grade-Ill of Category-I and accordingly all those Officers who do not have requisite qualification in terms of the said Rules had to be re-designated as Technician "C" in Category-I carrying the same scale of pay. 5. The Tribunal in the impugned Judgment held that though such reversion does not affect the Petitioners in both the cases financially, the scale of pay being the same, there may be complications in future promotion. Referring to some decisions, the Tribunal was of the view that before passing an order of reversion, the Petitioners in both the cases should have been given opportunity to show cause and accordingly set aside the order of reversion and directed the opposite parties to issue notice to show cause and only after receipt of the reply pass necessary order. 6. In both the cases before this Court at the time of admission an interim order was passed directing the opposite parties that the proceeding may continue but no final order shall be passed. It was also directed that the Petitioners in both the cases shall file show cause within the specific time which shall be accepted. 6. In both the cases before this Court at the time of admission an interim order was passed directing the opposite parties that the proceeding may continue but no final order shall be passed. It was also directed that the Petitioners in both the cases shall file show cause within the specific time which shall be accepted. In view of such interim order, no final order has been passed by the opposite parties till today but show cause notice was issued to the Petitioners pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal. 7. Shri Rath, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in both the cases challenges the impugned order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Petitioners were possessing the requisite educational qualification at the time of initial recruitment and therefore, the educational qualification introduced in the DR & DOTC Rules, which came into force in 1995, could not have been made applicable in case of prior recruitments. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in 1995 Rules there is a clear exemption from educational qualification in case of existing employees. Therefore, even if the Petitioners do not possess the requisite educational qualification as indicated in 1995 Rules, they should have been brought under Rule 11 and should have been allowed to continue in their posts instead of reverting them. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners in both the cases by virtue of the interim order are continuing in the earlier posts since 1995 and the orders of reversion have not been given effect to till today and, therefore, that factor should also be taken into consideration by this Court. 8. There is no dispute that the required educational qualification indicated in the 1995 Rules are not possessed by either of the Petitioners. It may be true that at the time of their recruitment they had possessed the requisite qualification prescribed then. After introduction of the new rules in the year 1995 it was found that the required qualification for the post held by the Petitioners had not been acquired by either of the Petitioners. On consideration of the same, both the Petitioners were reverted to the post of Technician "C". After introduction of the new rules in the year 1995 it was found that the required qualification for the post held by the Petitioners had not been acquired by either of the Petitioners. On consideration of the same, both the Petitioners were reverted to the post of Technician "C". It also appears that there is no change in the scale of pay and there will be no financial loss to either of the Petitioners, but it has been rightly held by the Tribunal that there may be complications in future promotion. The question as to whether the Petitioners are to be brought under Rule 11 of the said Rules or not is a matter which can also be decided by the competent authority who has issued notice to show cause pursuant to direction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned Judgment has not given any finding as to whether the Petitioners should be exempted from acquiring such educational qualification in terms of the rule introduced in the year 1995 or not. The Tribunal only held that before the order of reversion was passed, the Petitioners had not been given an opportunity of hearing. The opposite parties should have issued show cause notice and heard the Petitioners before passing the impugned order of reversion. We are also of the view that the approach of the Tribunal was justified and legal. The ground taken in the writ applications challenging the reversion orders can be considered by the competent authority while considering the replies filed by the Petitioners pursuant to the show cause notices. 9. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the Tribunal impugned before us and at the same time direct the opposite parties to consider the replies filed by the Petitioners pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal as well as this Court and pass reasoned orders on the said replies. While considering the replies, the opposite parties shall bear in mind that apart from the grounds taken in the writ applications challenging the orders of reversion, the Petitioners are continuing in their earlier posts since 1995 and the orders of reversion have not been given effect to for last 12 to 13 years. If any exemption is permissible as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners under Rule 11 of the 1995 Rules, such exemption should be extended to the Petitioners. If any exemption is permissible as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners under Rule 11 of the 1995 Rules, such exemption should be extended to the Petitioners. With the observations both the writ applications are disposed of. 10. O.J.C. No. 10169 of 2000 has been filed by Gopinath Das and O.J.C. No. 11449 of 2000 has been filed by Dileswar Pradhan challenging the orders of the Tribunal passed in the Original Applications filed by them rejecting their representations for revision of pay scales in the Grade of Technical Assistant "A". As is evident from the discussions made in respect of other connected two writ applications, while both the Petitioners were working in the Grade of Technical Assistant "A", the impugned orders of reversion were passed and the same having been stayed, they are continuing in the said posts by virtue of the interim order passed by the Tribunal as well as by this Court. Having continued in the said posts pursuant to the interim order, they claimed revision of scale of pay in the Technical Assistant "A". Such prayer was turned down by the Tribunal on the ground that the matter was sub-judice before this Court. There is no illegality or infirmity in the said order of the Tribunal. We are also of the view since the opposite parties reverted both the Petitioners to the post of Technician "C", without any notice to show cause or opportunity of hearing and they are continuing in their posts at present, consequent upon interim orders passed by the Tribunal as well as this Court. Only in the event, the opposite parties again revert them back to the post of Technician "C", the claim of revision of pay scales become debatable. 11. We, therefore dispose of these two writ applications with an observation that in the event both the Petitioners are allowed to continue in the posts they are holding at present and are not reverted back to the post of Technical "C", consequently revision of scales of pay shall follow. Only in the event they are reverted back to the Technician "C" their entire service period in the post of Technical Assistant "A" shall be considered for the purpose of revision of pay scales even though they have continued in the said post by interim order of this Court as well as the Tribunal. B.K. Patel, J. 12. I agree.