ORDER : R.M. Doshit, J. 1. This Appeal preferred by the writ petitioner under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 17th September 2010 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 3687 of 2010 insofar as the learned single Judge has refused to entertain the challenge to the order of reversion six years after the date of reversion and has directed the State Government to consider the representation made by the appellant according to its wisdom. 2. The appellant was the Correspondence Clerk employed under the respondent no. 5, the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Darbhanga Circle. The appellant, on passing the Accounts examination in 1991, became eligible for promotion to Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade. By order dated 22nd March 1993 made by the Superintending Engineer, the respondent no. 6, the appellant was promoted to Junior Selection Grade and the Senior Selection Grade effective from 3rd November 1991. Eleven years thereafter, realizing that two other Correspondence Clerks senior to the appellant, who had passed the Accounts examination in November 1992, were available for promotion to Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade, under order dated 26th November 2004 made by the Superintending Engineer, the respondent no. 6, the above referred order of promotion made on 22nd March 1993 was cancelled. The appellant was ordered to be reverted. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 3687 of 2010. The said petition has been disposed of by the learned single Judge as aforesaid. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Shahnawaz Ali has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the impugned order of reversion dated 26th November 2004 was never communicated to the appellant nor was it implemented. It was brought to the notice of the appellant as late as in 2009. By the said date the Senior Accounts Clerks referred to in the order i.e. Harihar Paswan and Navin Chandra Rishikesh both had retired from service. 5. Be that as it may, as it is disclosed in the counter affidavit the appellant had come within the zone of consideration and by order dated 25th November 2004 made by a Committee of officers, the appellant was promoted on a clear vacancy with effect from 1st September 2002. 6. 5. Be that as it may, as it is disclosed in the counter affidavit the appellant had come within the zone of consideration and by order dated 25th November 2004 made by a Committee of officers, the appellant was promoted on a clear vacancy with effect from 1st September 2002. 6. It is not in dispute that the appellant was eligible for promotion since 3rd November 1991. It is also not in dispute that the order of reversion made as early as on 26th November 2004 has not been implemented as yet. The contention of the appellant that the order was not served upon the appellant is belied by the admission made by him in his representation dated 16th June 2009. Nevertheless, it is an admitted fact that the order of reversion has not been implemented till the date. 7. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of reversion dated 26th November 2004 is now of no consequence, as the same has not been implemented as yet and now that the appellant has been regularly promoted with effect from 1st September 2002 the question of his reversion does not arise. 8. For the aforesaid reason, Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 17th September 2010 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 3687 of 2010 is set aside. CWJC No. 3687 of 2010 is allowed. The order dated 26th November 2004 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and the consequential order of recovery made on 31st March 2009 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) are quashed and set aside. 9. The parties will bear their own cost.