Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on merit. The writ petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in the State of Bihar on 30.4.1983 and when he was not promoted to the higher post, he moved the Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3538 of 2002 for a direction to the respondents-authority to consider his case for promotion. Since, by that time, the State of Bihar was bifurcated and new State of Jharkhand was created, therefore, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the decision is to be taken by the State of Bihar with the consent of the State of Jharkhand, as the cadre has not been bifurcated. However, thereafter, the petitioner was accorded promotion to the post of Executive Engineer vide notification no. 9205 dated 11.12.2002 by the State of Bihar. The petitioner thereupon started discharging his duties on the promoted post in the territory of State of Jharkhand. After about eight years, all of a sudden, respondent-State of Jharkhand passed the order on 4.9.2011 (Annexure-6) withdrawing the promotion earlier granted to the writ petitioner on the ground that on appointed day i.e., on 15.11.2000, quota, meant for Scheduled Castes to the extent of 10 %, was full and as such no vacancy was existing against the Scheduled Castes category. The said order has been challenged by filing W.P. (S) No. 4938 of 2010, which was allowed vide order dated 25.2.2011 by the learned Single Judge. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that since there was no cadre division therefore, the petitioner was given promotion and that promotion was provisional, therefore, it could have been withdrawn at any time. 3. Learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order after considering the provisions contained in Sections 72 and 73 of the Bihar Re-organization Act and after considering the facts of the case observed that vacancy against the sanctioned strength was fully established by the letter dated 13.02.2002 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, P.H.E.D., Government of Bihar to the Commissioner and Secretary, P.H.E.D., Government of Jharkhand and, therefore, on facts, the stand taken by the State is wrong. Apart from above, even by virtue of Section 73 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 200, said order could not have been passed. 4. Apart from above, even by virtue of Section 73 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 200, said order could not have been passed. 4. We are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the State Government and observed that after such a belated stage and after serving for eight years at relevant time, the writ petitioner cannot be reverted. 5. Hence, the L.P.A, having no merit, is dismissed.