ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ applications (CWJC No.15396/13 & CWJC No.15914/2013). The learned counsel for the respondent-State Authorities has also been heard. 2. As in the two writ applications identical issues are involved, therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. All the writ petitioners were appointed as junior engineers in the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and they all belong to scheduled castes. In the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 08.12.2010 (Annexure-1), the petitioners were found entitled to promotion and thereafter by notification dated 03.01.2011 (Annexure-2), the petitioners were granted promotion to the post of assistant engineer. However, in the said order of the promotion one rider was included in Clause-4 providing the condition that the junior engineers who were senior to the petitioners and whose promotions had been kept pending, if found later on fit for grant of promotion then in that case the junior most among the engineers who had been granted promotion by the said order dated 03.01.2011 could be reverted. 4. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners on 08.07.2013 in pursuance to the said rider regarding their proposed reversion. The petitioners submitted their show cause. Thereafter the impugned order dated 30.07.2013 (Annexures-5 in both the writ applications) has been passed reverting the petitioners in both the writ applications to the post of junior engineer. 5. The primary submission of the petitioners in both the writ applications is that the conditions envisaged in Clause 4 of the promotion order dated 03.01.2011 for exercising the option of reverting the petitioners are not at all present, and therefore, any action in pursuance to the same is total uncalled for and arbitrary exercise of power. It is the specific case of the petitioners that no junior engineer belonging to scheduled castes category and senior to the petitioners, has uptil now been found suitable for promotion and, if at all, any junior engineer of the same category and senior to the petitioners is found entitled to promotion he can be accommodated by reverting the junior most of the junior engineers promoted by the order dated 03.01.2011. 6. 6. In view of the aforesaid categorical assertion on behalf of the petitioners, this Court has passed the order on 07.02.2014 in following terms: “Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar or a person authorized by him, must file a categorical affidavit along with supporting annexures indicating the decision of the DPC to grant promotion to such persons on the post of Assistant Engineer, who are said to be seniors to all these petitioners and now deserve to be accommodated in terms of the rider indicated in Clause-4 of the notification dated 3.1.2011. They will also be obliged to produce the notification by virtue of which the notification for promotion has been issued in favour of those persons. In the alternative, if these steps have not been taken then in the opinion of the Court, it is a case of overkill awaiting decision yet to be taken or required to be taken. The above affidavit must be in place within two weeks. The department will also inform the Court as to how many vacancies on such post are available and are required to be filled up by promotion. Let these writ applications be listed on 21st February, 2014 for further consideration”. 7. The said direction was reiterated in the order dated 23.04.2014. The counter affidavit has thereafter been filed on behalf of the respondent no.5-deputy secretary and further two supplementary counter affidavits have also been filed by the said respondent. 8. From the perusal of the counter affidavit and supplementary affidavits, it becomes explicit that the respondents have failed to submit specific reply to the two queries of the Court in the order dated 07.02.2014. It appears from the minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 31.01.2013 (Annexure-10 to the rejoinder to counter affidavit) that no junior engineer belonging to scheduled castes category and senior to the petitioners was found fit for promotion. From the minutes of the meeting of the next Departmental Promotion Committee held on 24.07.2013 (Annexure-11 to the rejoinder to counter affidavit), it is again transparent that no such junior engineer belonging to scheduled caste category and senior to the petitioners had been found fit for promotion. 9. From the minutes of the meeting of the next Departmental Promotion Committee held on 24.07.2013 (Annexure-11 to the rejoinder to counter affidavit), it is again transparent that no such junior engineer belonging to scheduled caste category and senior to the petitioners had been found fit for promotion. 9. In their counter affidavit as well as the two supplementary counter affidavits, the respondents have not come out with the case that any junior engineer senior to the petitioners and belonging to the scheduled castes category has been found suitable for promotion and is to be accommodated by reverting the petitioners or any of them as no post for the same is available. It has been accepted by the learned counsel for the respondents that no meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee has been held after 24.07.2013 and referring to paragraph-12 of the second supplementary counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the Bihar Public Service Commission has been requested by the respondents on 23.04.2014 to convene the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee. 10. In view of these facts, it becomes plain and patent that the impugned order as contained in Annexures-5 to the writ applications has been passed simply on fanciful perception when there is no junior engineer, belonging to scheduled castes category and senior to the petitioners, to be accommodated by promotion and for the said purpose the petitioners are required to be reverted. The required conditions for reversion, as envisaged in the promotional order dated 03.01.2011, remaining absent, the impugned order for reversion of the petitioner is definitely a case of overkill. 11. Ex consequenti, these two writ applications succeed and the order dated 30.07.2013 as contained in Annexure-5 in both the writ applications is quashed. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not press the interlocutory application (I.A.No.3289/2014), which is, accordingly, dismissed.