ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure P/9) issued by Respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been demoted to the post of Hammal (contingency fund) from Skilled-Attendent. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 28.01.1987, the petitioner was appointed as Helper on adhoc basis in the respondent Department by order No./ Estt-2/87 (Annexure P/1) and on 31.03.1990, by Order No/.../Govt. Poly. Durg/Estt/90/1106 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner was regularized as Hammal/Porter. Thereafter, vide order No/Tech/Govt. Poly. Durg/Estt/ 98/3877, dated 12.08.1998 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner was declared permanent employee of the Department. During the service period, looking to the seniority of the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Skilled-Attendant vide order dated 08.09.2006 (Annexure P/4). According to the petitioner, he was promoted as Skilled-Attendatn by Shri D.P. Nayak, Govt. Polytechnic Durg, who retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation and after his retirement, the promotion order issued by him was cancelled and vide order dated 09.02.2012 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner was demoted to the post of Hammal. The demotion order dated 09.02.2012 was challenged by the petitioner before this Hon’ble High Court in writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.743/2013 and this Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 17.02.2012 (Annexure P/6), allowed the petition and set-aside the demotion order. Thereafter, again the Respondent No.2 issued order dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure P/9) demoting the petitioner to the post of Hammal, which is under challenged in this petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not get single promotion till 12.08.1998, thereafter, vide order dated 08.09.2006, he was promoted as Skilled-Attendant by Shri D.P. Nayak, Principal, who retired from service w.e.f. 20.03.2008. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had acquired all the requisite qualification with due permission of Respondent No.2 but he was reverted vide order dated 09.02.2012 (Annexure P/9), which was set aside by this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(S) No.743/2012. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner’s demotion vide impugned order dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure P/9) is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner neither concealed the fact of any antecedents nor he had practiced any fraud, as such, his demotion is opposed to every canons of law equity and justice. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner neither concealed the fact of any antecedents nor he had practiced any fraud, as such, his demotion is opposed to every canons of law equity and justice. 4. Reliance has been placed on the decision dated 22.08.2023 of this Court in WPS No.742/2012 [In the matter of Madan Lal Sahu vs. State of C.G. & Ors.]. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that in compliance of order dated 22.08.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.742/2012 by this Court, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.06.2012, which has been replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure R/2). Learned State counsel further submits that in compliance of this Court’s order dated 17.02.2012, the case of the petitioner has been examined in accordance with law. The petitioner has failed to produce any document regarding his eligibility for being promoted to the post of Skilled Attendant. Thus, the impugned order dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure P/9) has been passed in accordance with law and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents/State has initiated Departmental Enquiry against the erring officer namely D.P. Nayak, the then Principal, which is pending consideration before the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry, Raipur. Learned counsel also submits that as per Chhattisgarh Technical Education Tritiya Shreni (Alipikiya Vargiya) Seva Bharti Niyam, 2005, for the post of Skilled Attendant the candidates are required to possess I.T.I. certificate or its equivalent, whereas the petitioner has the qualification of only 10th pass. There is no promotional post for the Hammal and merely laboratory Attendant may be promoted as Skilled Attendant subject to fulfillment of requisite qualification of I.T.I. certificate through Departmental Promotion Committee recommendation. Learned counsel also submits that there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondents/State. The impugned order (Annexure P/9) passed by Respondent No.2 is just, proper and legal, as such, the instant petition may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In the case, the petitioner has filed copy of Temporary National Vocational Certificate of July, 2010 and copy of Secondary School Certificate (Annexure P/7) of 1999. According to the respondents/State, the petitioner was not having requisite qualification on the date of promotion, therefore, he was reverted back. 8. 7. In the case, the petitioner has filed copy of Temporary National Vocational Certificate of July, 2010 and copy of Secondary School Certificate (Annexure P/7) of 1999. According to the respondents/State, the petitioner was not having requisite qualification on the date of promotion, therefore, he was reverted back. 8. True it is that the petitioner was not having requisite qualification at the time of promotion but when this Court allowed the writ petition (WPS No.743/2012) and in compliance of that, a notice was issued to the petitioner to put his stand and the petitioner vide his reply dated 28.06.2012, submitted copy of requisite certificate i.e. Temporary National Vocational Certificate of July, 2010 i.e. prior to demotion of the petitioner. This Court in earlier round of litigation has pointed out that there is nothing to indicate in the order granting promotion that either the promotion post itself was temporary or the promotion of the petitioners were in officiating capacity. In the said view of the matter it was necessary for the authority who has passed the impugned order to have afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before reverting him to his original post. 9. No doubt that the authority has afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner has duly replied to authority supplying the requisite certificate. It was for the authority to rectify the mistake in positive manner but they outrightly demoted the petitioner without considering the requisite certificate and executive instruction of Government that the Class-IV employees can be promoted to the post of Class-III. 10. This Court in the matter of Madan Lal Sahu (supra), observed in paras 6 and 7 as under :- “6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is incorrect fact to say that only peon can be promoted as Assistant Grade-III, whereas as per the Government circular dated 24.03.1996 which provides that class-IV employees will be promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-III, 25% posts have to be kept reserved for the post of Assistant Grade-III. The circular nowhere provides that only peon can be promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-III. The circular nowhere provides that only peon can be promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-III. Even the circular which has been referred to by the State Government dated 24.05.1996 also provides that the Class-IV category employees who have cleared the Higher Secondary School Examination and have completed regular service in the department, they should be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-III. The erstwhile State of MP has already issued various circulars in this regard for granting promotion to the Class-IV employees right from 13.03.1984, subsequent another circular dated 24.05.1996 have also been issued in this regard granting the promotion to the Class-IV employees on the post of Assistant Grade-III which is Class-III post. 7. Considering the circular and also considering the fact that opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has not been granted, further considering the fact that order dated 2. 02.2012 passed by the respondents is nonest, bad-in-law and the same deserves to be set aside as it has been passed without considering the executive instruction issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India by the State Government on 16.05.1997 and 24. 05.1996, this Court has granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner and the interim order still continues for more than 10 years and further considering that the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 has civil consequence which has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is in violation of principle of natural justice and further taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 deserved to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed.” 11. In the instant case also, the petitioner was working since 1998 and as per Government circular dated 24.03.1996, Class-IV employees will be promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-III and this Court has quashed the demotion order of Madan Lal Sahu (supra), who was promoted on Assistant Grade-III from Class-IV. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by this Court in Madan Lal Sahu (supra), the impugned order dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure P/9) is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits including the monetary benefits. 13. The petition is thus allowed.