JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 31.10.2002 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby the promotion granted to the petitioner, on the post of Office Superintendent with effect from 14.04.1987 and pay fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5500 to Rs.9000/- has been cancelled, and the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Circle Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.4500/- to 7000/-with effect from 14.04.1987 vide Annexure-8 to the writ application. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to the respondents to continue on the post of Office Superintendent in Circle Office, General Manager with all consequential benefits. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioner late Bibhuti Bhushan Singh died and vide order dated 20.10.2011 in I.A. No.2109 of 2010 the wife of the deceased petitioner has been substituted. 2. The brief facts, leading to filing of the writ application by the deceased petitioner is that he was appointed as Clerk in Divisional Cadre on 14.07.1975 under respondent no.3 and with effect from 01.07.1978 he was posted as Assistant in Circle Cadre. It has been stated in the writ application that there are four sanctioned posts of Administrative Officer under respondent no.3 and out of this, 3 posts of Administrative Officer are sanctioned for the office of three General Managers’ office which are situated at Ranchi, Hazariagh and Patna and one post of Administrative Officer is sanctioned for Head Quarter, M.D. Office at Patna. It has further been averred that three Office Superintendent are posted in three General Managers office against the sanctioned posts of Administrative Officer and were discharging the duties of Administrative Officer as no Administrative Officers are posted in the office of General Manager. It has been averred that the petitioner was functioning as Office Superintendent in the office of General Manager with effect from 14.04.1987 till 08.11.2002. During course of discharging of duties the pay of the petitioner has been revised from time to time. It has been submitted that vide office order dated 07.07.1992 issued under the signature of M.D., Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Patna, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Office Superintendent against the vacant post of Administrative Officer in the unrevised scale with effect from 14.04.1987 from the date of posting as Office Superintendent as per Annexure-5 to the writ application. The pay of the petitioner was fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- on the post of Office Superintendent with effect from 01.01.1996 vide office order dated 31.12.1999 as per Annexure-6/1 to the writ application. In pursuance to resolution issued vide memo dated 23.03.2002 Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. was established and adopted the memorandum of Article of Association-ship of erstwhile Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, Patna. It has further been stated that all along petitioner has been posted in the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand and after creation of the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. he became employment of JSFDC, Ranchi and for all practical JSFDC is the controlling authority/employer of the petitioner. Vide Memo dated 31.10.2002 issued under the signature of MD, BSFDC, Patna whereby petitioner’s promotion was granted to the post of Office Superintendent in the said office and he has been reverted on the post of Circle Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.4500/- to 7000/- with effect from 14.04.1987 as per Annexure-8 to the writ application. Thereafter the petitioner was relieved from G.M. Office with effect from 28.11.2002. It has further been averred that like petitioner one Prafulla Pandey has challenged the order of reversion in CWJC No.5983 of 2000 before the Hon’ble Patna High Court and the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of cancellation of promotion and reversion from the post of Office Superintendent to Circle Assistant, the petitioner left with no alternative, has challenged the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that before issuance of impugned order dated 31.10.2002 vide Annexure-8, no show cause notice was ever issued nor the petitioner was given opportunity to put-forth his explanation, therefore, there has been breach of principles of natural justice which renders the impugned order illegal, unconstitutional, unlawful and arbitrary. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner having worked on the promoted post of Office Superintendent from 14.04.1987 for more than 15 years by virtue of the order of reversion, the petitioner has been subjected to civil consequences, since the accrued/vested right has been whittled down by the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner having worked on the promoted post of Office Superintendent from 14.04.1987 for more than 15 years by virtue of the order of reversion, the petitioner has been subjected to civil consequences, since the accrued/vested right has been whittled down by the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that the order passed by the respondent vide Annexure-8 is bereft of jurisdiction, in view of the fact that the petitioner after bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar and after creation of State of Jharkhand, the respondent Bihar State Forest Development Corporation could not have passed the order in view of the decision of this Court reported in JLJR 2002 (1) 697 (State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Arvind Vijay Bilung) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 4 SCC 583. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is also contrary to the provision made in Rule 74 of the Bihar Reorganization Act. 4. Repudiating the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5. In the counter affidavit it has been inter alia submitted that till 31.01.2003, the bifurcation of cadre of officers and staffs/employees of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. has not been done and therefore it cannot be said that petitioner is an employee of Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation even after its creation with effect from 23.03.2002 though the petitioner has been posted at Hazaribagh/Ranchi, therefore, the petitioner’s service is still under the administrative control and jurisdiction of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Patna. It has further been submitted that no show cause or notice was required to be served upon the petitioner since the promotion order itself contained that the order is purely temporary and can be stayed at any time. Moreover, the post of office superintendent is not a sanctioned post and the petitioner has not been promoted to the post of Administrative Officer and Section 74 of the Bihar Reorganization Act is not attracted in the petitioner’s case. Moreover, the post of office superintendent is not a sanctioned post and the petitioner has not been promoted to the post of Administrative Officer and Section 74 of the Bihar Reorganization Act is not attracted in the petitioner’s case. It has further been submitted that the post of Office Superintendent was not sanctioned in the office of the respondent no.5-General Manager till the filing of the counter affidavit and the post of Office Superintendent is not sanctioned either by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation or by Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Therefore, the promotion granted without sanctioned post was illegal and hence it has been cancelled. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.3. In the counter affidavit it has been submitted that as per Section 65 of the Bihar Reorganization Act 2000 till division of the B.S.F.D.C., it is an inter-State Corporation, hence the Managing Director, B.S.F.D.C has over all jurisdiction in the service matter of the staff appointed by the B.S.F.D.C either posted in Bihar or Jharkhand. It has been submitted that the petitioner’s service was under the administrative control and jurisdiction of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Patna. Apart from that the post of Office Superintendent was not sanctioned in the office of General Manager, Miner Forest Produce Project Circle, Hazaribagh, hence illegal promotion granted to the petitioner without having any sanctioned post and the same was against the rules and therefore, the same has been cancelled by the respondent no.3. It has further been stated and submitted that Section 74 of the Bihar Reorganization Act is not applicable in the case of petitioner and Section 65 is applicable in the case of petitioner. The assets and liabilities of the company has not been divided. It has further been submitted that there was no sanctioned post of Office Superintendent in the office of Miner Forest Produce Project Circle, Hazaribagh. He was promoted against a vacant post of Administrative Officer in the higher pay scale which is not permitted under the rules. The power for selection to fill up the post of Administrative Officer was vested in the committee constituted by the Bureau of Public Enterprises. He was promoted against a vacant post of Administrative Officer in the higher pay scale which is not permitted under the rules. The power for selection to fill up the post of Administrative Officer was vested in the committee constituted by the Bureau of Public Enterprises. The Bureau of Public Enterprises vide letter dated 22.11.1979 clearly indicated the decision of State Government that the post having pay scale of Rs.840 and above shall be filled up according to the high level selection committee according to the resolution dated 29.07.1978 issued by the Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar. The Managing Director did not have the authority to promote any employee of the Corporation to the post of Administrative Officer, therefore, the promotion granted to the petitioner vide memo dated 25.06.1986 was de hors the rule. Vide resolution dated 29.07.1978 the Government of Bihar issued circular for purposes of making appointment in Class-I and II post as per Annexure-R-3/A and R-3/A/1. It has further been submitted that the post of Office Superintendent in the office of General Manager, Hazaribagh was never sanctioned by the Government of Bihar. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 20.03.2017 has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.4 and 5 wherein it has been submitted that only one post of Office Superintendent having pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- was sanctioned for Champaran Forest Project Circle and only one post of Administrative Officer for Patna Head Quarter and three posts of Administrative Officer for three Circles was sanctioned by Board of Directors of BSFDC, Patna and the list of sanctioned post was also enclosed as per Annexure-D and D/1 to the said affidavit. Therefore, from perusal of the said letter and enclosure it is clear that no post of Office Superintendent was sanctioned for Ranchi and Hazaribagh Circle by the BSFDC Ltd, Patna. It is also submitted that vide notification no.2664 dated 29.06.2012 issued by the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Forest and Environment, Ranchi it is clear that neither the post of Office Superintendent nor the post of Administrative Officer for Ranchi and Hazaribagh G.M. Circle Office has been sanctioned for JSFDC Ltd., Ranchi as per Annexure-E to the said affidavit. 7. It is also submitted that vide notification no.2664 dated 29.06.2012 issued by the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Forest and Environment, Ranchi it is clear that neither the post of Office Superintendent nor the post of Administrative Officer for Ranchi and Hazaribagh G.M. Circle Office has been sanctioned for JSFDC Ltd., Ranchi as per Annexure-E to the said affidavit. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference, due to the following facts and reasons: (I) The petitioner though initially was appointed as a clerk in Divisional Cadre under respondent no.3 and was posted as the Assistant Clerk in Circle Cadre in the year 1978. Vide order dated 08.11.1988 the petitioner was posted as Assistant in the office of G.M, Ranchi as per Annexure-2 to the writ application. The petitioner on 7.7.1992 was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent against the vacant sanctioned of Administrative Officer. The gradation list of clerks working in the Circle Cadre was published vide memo dated 23.11.1989 where the petitioner’s name is mentioned at serial no.2. In the year 1999 the decision taken by the Board of Director in its 84th meeting decided to revise pay scale and the petitioner’s pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- was fixed on the post of Office Superintendent. Vide order dated 31.10.2002 petitioner’s promotion on the post of Office Superintendent was cancelled with effect from 14.04.1987 and has been reverted to the post of Circle Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-. It is the contention on behalf of respondents that the post of Administrative Officer was vacant and the petitioner was temporarily posted to the post of Office Superintendent. (II) The petitioner was never appointed on the sanctioned post of Office Superintendent which is fortified by the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5 and also by respondent no.3. (III) Because of the impugned order the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Circle Assistant and was temporarily posted as Office Superintendent. The case of similarly place employee namely Praffulla Pandey who filed W.P.(S) No.1087 of 2009 has been dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2009 which has been confirmed by the decision dated 06.10.2010 in L.P.A. No.268 of 2010. (III) Because of the impugned order the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Circle Assistant and was temporarily posted as Office Superintendent. The case of similarly place employee namely Praffulla Pandey who filed W.P.(S) No.1087 of 2009 has been dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2009 which has been confirmed by the decision dated 06.10.2010 in L.P.A. No.268 of 2010. In that view of the matter no relief could have been granted to the deceased petitioner. Since in the meantime, during pendency of the writ application, petitioner has died and the wife of the deceased petitioner has been substituted in place of petitioner. Since petitioner’s promotion was not against sanctioned vacant post and it was de hors of rules, no infirmity or illegality has been committed by the respondent in issuing the impugned order vide Annexure-8 to the writ application. 8. As a cumulative effect of the facts and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, there is no substance in the writ application. Hence, it is hereby dismissed.