JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J.:- Heard Mr. K. Rabei, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. In the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.7.2011 by which they had been reverted to the lower posts and order dated 05.7.2011 by which the said reversion order dated 29.6.2011 was given effect to by reverting the petitioners back to their substantive posts of Road Mohorrir as well as the order dated 7.7.2011 by which they were transferred to their respective blocks as Road Mohorrirs. 3. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 was initially appointed as Road Mohorrir on 6.4.1981 and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on 21.3.1988. Thereafter, considering the exigency of service and for proper implementation of works relating to Poverty Alleviation programme, the petitioner No.1 was given promotion as Section Officer, Grade-It on officiating capacity vide order dated 30.4.1998 against the vacancy caused by the retirement of K. Lukumar Singh, S.O. with immediate effect till the post is filled up on regular basis. Similarly, the petitioner No.2 was appointed vide order dated 28.10.1998 on officiating capacity as Section Officer, Grade-II against the existing vacancy due to retirement of L. Kali Singh, S.O. with effect from the date of issue of the order till the post is filled up on regular basis. The petitioner No.3 was also appointed vide order dated 05.9.1998 as Section Officer, Grade-II on officiating capacity against the vacancy arising out of the retirement of Y. Chandrakumar Singh, S.O. with effect from the date of issue of the order till the post is filled up on regular basis. 4. While the petitioners were serving as Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis as stated above, on the recommendation of the Class III DPC held on 30.10.1999, their officiating appointments were regularised in the grade of Section Officer, Grade-II (Civil) vide order dated 4.11.1999. An extract of the aforesaid appointment order dated 4.11.1999 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "ORDER Lamphelpat, the 4th November, 1999 No. 1/48/77-RD/V: On the recommendation of the Class-III D.P.C. in its meeting held on 30.10.99 and in pursuance of government approval conveyed vide Secretariat Development Deptt. An extract of the aforesaid appointment order dated 4.11.1999 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "ORDER Lamphelpat, the 4th November, 1999 No. 1/48/77-RD/V: On the recommendation of the Class-III D.P.C. in its meeting held on 30.10.99 and in pursuance of government approval conveyed vide Secretariat Development Deptt. 's letter No. 1/11/99-Dev dated 3.11.99, the officiating appointment on promotion of the following Road Mohorrirs as Section Officer, Grade-H (Civil) in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-70007 P.M. with all other allowances as admissible under rules are hereby regularised against the post held by them with effect from date of their joining duties to their respective blocks. Sl.No.Name of incumbentsPlace of posting 1.Shri Kh. Girani Singh, S.O. (vice L. Lukumar Singh Retd.)ImphalWest-l,C.D. 2.Shri N. Indraj Singh, S.O. (vice L. Kali Singh, Retd.)Imphal East-II, C.D. 3.Shri K. Poireicha Meitei, S.O. (vice Khomei Singh, Retd.)Jiribam CD Block. Sd/ (Y. Neta Singh) Director, Rural Dev. & Panchayat Raj, Manipur" 5. The promotion order/regularisation order clearly shows that the petitioners had been regularised against substantive vacancies shown therein. However, according to the petitioners, to their shock and surprise, the impugned order dated 29.6.2011 was issued by which they were reverted back to the posts of Road Mohorrir on the ground that the petitioners were recommended for promotion purely on temporary basis against deputation vacancies by the DPC held on 30.10.99. However, contrary to the recommendation of the said DPC for promotion against the deputation vacancies, they were wrongly given regular promotion as Section Officers, Grade-II. As per the said impugned order dated 29.6.2011, the reversion of the petitioners had become necessary in order to accommodate those deputationists on being repatriated to the parent department. 6. The State respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition and contested the claim of the writ petitioners. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the State respondents have stated that the DPC which was held on 30.10.99 had recommended for appointment as Section Officer, Grade-II (Civil) against the deputation vacancies as clearly mentioned in the proceedings of the DPC, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-R/3 to the affidavit-in-opposition and accordingly, the order of regularisation of the petitioners who were serving as officiating Section Officers, Grade-II (Civil) is not in conformity with the recommendation made by the DPC. It has been stated that approval conveyed by the Government vide letter dated 3.11.1999 as mentioned in the regularisation order dated 4.11.1999 relates to the recommendation of the DPC held on 30.10.1999 for filling up the posts against deputation vacancies and not for regular promotion against substantive vacancies. According to the State respondents, since the Section Officers who were earlier deputed to other departments have been repatriated to the parent department, they had to be adjusted against their respective posts of Section Officers and accordingly, the petitioners had to be reverted back to their respective substantive posts of Road Mohorrir and accordingly, it has been submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 29.6.2011. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the records, what has been observed is that the petitioners, who were earlier appointed as Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis in the year 1998 were given regular promotion vide order dated 4.11.1999 purportedly on the recommendation of the Class - IH DPC held on 30.10.1999. Perusal of the proceedings of the Class-m DPC held on 30.10.99, however, clearly reveals that the DPC was convened for making recommendation against the existing deputation vacancies and not for regular promotion. Therefore, any promotion made on the basis of the said recommendation of the DPC held on 30.10.1999 ought to be against the deputation vacancies and by the very nature of the vacancy, the promotion cannot be on regular basis. In that view of the matter, the promotion of the petitioners on regular basis by the order dated 4.11.1999 cannot be said to be in terms of the recommendation of the DPC held on 30.10.1999. Therefore, the stand of the State respondents that regular promotion of the petitioners as Section Officers, Grade-II (Civil) on regular basis by issuing the order dated 4.11.1999 is not valid is were not recommended for regular promotion but for promotion against the deputation vacancies. Mr. Rabei, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has submitted mat perusal of the impugned order dated 29.6.2011 would indicate that the State Government took the decision to revert the petitioners to the posts of Road Mohorrir only on the ground that the two deputationists, namely, N. Jibraj Singh and Kh. Mr. Rabei, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has submitted mat perusal of the impugned order dated 29.6.2011 would indicate that the State Government took the decision to revert the petitioners to the posts of Road Mohorrir only on the ground that the two deputationists, namely, N. Jibraj Singh and Kh. Devananda Singh, who were holding the posts of Section Officer, Grade-I, were repatriated to the RD & PR from DRDA Thoubal and as such, repatriation of these Section Officers, Grade-I to the department of RD & PR, would not, in normal circumstances, ought to have affected the promotion of the petitioners to the posts of Section Officer, Grade-II as the petitioners were promoted to a lower grade of Section Officer. Further, it has been submitted by Mr. Rabei that at the time of reversion of the petitioners to the posts of Road Mohorrir, no show cause notice was issued as they had been already promoted on regular basis and ought to have been given an opportunity to explain their position, which was not done in the present case. Mr. Rabei, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that accordingly, the order dated 29.6.2011 is liable to be set aside. 8. Mr.Y. Ashang, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents, however, has submitted that since the very promotion of the petitioners on regular basis vide order dated 4.11.1999 was not done in accordance with the recommendation of the Class-Ill DPC held on 30.10.99, they have no right to be appointed on promotion as Section Officers, Grade-II (Civil) on regular basis as has been done by the said order dated 4.11.1999 and submitted that recalling the said order dated 4.11.1999 and reverting the petitioners back to their substantive post of Road Mohorrirs cannot be faulted with. 9. This Court has observed that at the time of issue of the impugned order dated 29.6.2011 by which the petitioners were reverted to the posts of Road Mohorrir that they were holding the posts of Section Officers, Grade-II. Prior to that, the petitioners had been appointed in 1988 as Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis against the vacancies which had accrued due to retirement of the incumbents in Section Officer, Grade-II till the posts are filled up on regular basis. Prior to that, the petitioners had been appointed in 1988 as Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis against the vacancies which had accrued due to retirement of the incumbents in Section Officer, Grade-II till the posts are filled up on regular basis. Therefore, if the said order dated 4.11.1999 is held to be illegal and not in conformity with the recommendation of the DPC held on 30.10.99 as contended by the State respondents, the petitioners ought to be been reverted back to their original status i.e. Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis, which, however, has not been done. In other words, after cancelling the order dated 4.11.1999, they ought to have been reverted back to Section Officer, Grade-II on officiating basis as per their initial appointments as Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis on 30.4.1998,28.10.98 and 5.9.98. However, instead of doing so, the State respondents have reverted them to the posts of Road Mohorrirs. It is to be noted that the State respondents have not stated that those posts against which the petitioners were initially appointed as Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis in 1998 have been already filled up on regular basis. In fact, those vacancies still exist as can be seen from the promotion order dated 4.11.1999 as quoted above. Therefore, since it is not the case of the State respondents that the posts against which the petitioners were initially appointed as Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis have been already filled up on regular basis or have been abolished, the petitioners ought to have been reverted back not as Road Mohorrirs but as Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis in which capacity they were working just prior to the issue of the regularisation order dated 4.11.1999 which was stated to be illegal. It is also to be noted that the reason for which the petitioners were reverted to their substantive posts of Road Mohorrir is that two Grade-I Section Officers, namely, N. Jibraj Singh and Kh. Devananda Singh were repatriated to the parent department of RD & PR. Since, they were Section Officers, Grade-I, it ought not have affected the appointment of the petitioners as Section Officers, Grade-II. It has been also noticed that Sri Kh. Devananda Singh were repatriated to the parent department of RD & PR. Since, they were Section Officers, Grade-I, it ought not have affected the appointment of the petitioners as Section Officers, Grade-II. It has been also noticed that Sri Kh. Devananda Singh, Section Officer, Grade-I of Thoubal CD Block on whose repatriation, the authorities issued the impugned order dated 26.9.2011, was deputed as Assistant Engineer in DRDA in 2004 vide order dated 21.2.2004, which is much later after the petitioners were appointed as Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis in 1998. Therefore, none of the petitioners can be said to have been appointed against the deputation vacancy caused by the deputation of Shri Kh. Devananda Singh to DRDA in 2004. If that is so, the petitioners could not have been reverted to the lower substantive posts of Road Mohorrir on repatriation of Shri Kh. Devananda Singh. It has been also noted that the State Government had not issued any order cancelling the order dated 4.11.1999 by which the service of the petitioners were regularised as Section Officers. It is not even mentioned in the impugned order dated 26.9.2011 that the regularisation order dated 4.11.1999 has been cancelled or recalled. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed by interfering with the impugned order dated 29.6.2011 to the extent that though the appointment of the petitioners as Section Officers, Grade-II on regular basis vide order dated 4.11.1999 may not be in accordance with the recommendation of the DPC held on 30.11.1999, they are liable to be reverted not as Road Mohorrirs but as Section Officers, Grade-II (Civil) on officiating basis as those vacancies against which the petitioners were initially appointed on officiating basis had not been filled up on regular basis. It is further provided that if those vacancies have not been abolished, the respondents authorities would have to take necessary steps for holding DPC for filling up the posts of Section Officers, Grade-II on regular basis in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. As a consequence, since the petitioners are found to be entitled to remain as Section Officers, Grade-II on officiating basis to which they were initially appointed in 1998, the orders dated 05.7.2011 and 7.7.2011 are set aside. The respondents are directed to pass fresh appropriate orders keeping into consideration the observations and findings as above. ___________