JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:—The appellant, D. M. Bharati, challenges the validity of an order dated 30-9-76 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad. By the said order, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, consequent on the staff of the Municipal Corporation working in the Town Planning Establishment having to be absorbed in the Municipal Corporation, "reverted" the appellant from the post of junior draftsman in the Establishment and appointed him to act in the post of a tracer in the Town Development Department of the Corporation. The High Court rejected his writ petition and hnce the present appeal.

2. It is necessary to state the relevant facts. The appellant had been appointed as a tracer in the Estate Department of the Municipal Corporation on 26-6-1955 and worked there till 18th February, 1957. It appears that the Government appointed a Town Planning Officer under the provisions of S. 31 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. The Town Planning Officer had to be supplied with an establishment. The establishment of the Town Planning Officer was admittedly temporary. An arrangement was entered into between the two authorities that the arbitrator in the planning office could select such persons from the Corporation for his establishment as he thought fit. The Town Planning Officer demanded the services of the appellant and he was appointed as a tracer in the Town Planning Establishment on 22-2-1957. It is not clear whether the appellant went therein by way of transfer or by way of deputation as the original order dated 22-2-1957 is not available with us. However, the High Court and the appellant have proceeded on the footing that the appellant was deputed from the Municipal Corporation to the Town Planing Establishment.

3. Sometime later, the post of a junior draftsman fell vacant in the Town Planning Establishment. The appellant tells us that he was asked to take charge of that post on 4-121959. It appears that Mr. Yevla (Respondent No. 6 in the W.P.) was posted to fill in that vacancy but, on 21-4-1960, his appointment was cancelled and the appellant was appointed as junior draftsman in the Town Planning Establishment w.e.f. 4-12-1959. The appellant tells us that he had also been subsequently recommended for appointment to the post of Surveyor-cum-Draftsman, which was a higher post and which had fallen vacant on 28-2-1962. But before this proposal could materialise the appellant was suspended on 5th December, 1962 by the Corporation and was removed from service on 13-5-64. The Industrial Court granted approval to the removal of the appellant from service but made certain observations suggesting that he may be re-appointed to the said post. The appellant filed a writ petition against the order of the industrial court. The High Court eventually, set aside the order of the industrial court on 1-2-69 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the industrial court. The Muncipal Corporation preferred S.L.P. 48/ 71 in this Court which was dismissed on 27-1-71. The industrial court re-heard the matter pursuant to the order of the High Court and declined approval to the order of removal of the appellant from service with the result that the order of removal dated 13-5-64 stood vacated and an order was passed on 3-3-71 by the Municipal Commissioner that the appellant was reappointed as a junior draftsman in the Town Planning Establishment.

4. In the meantime, on 16-8-1965, consequent on the recommendations of the industrial court, the appellant was appointed as junior draftsman in the Estates Department of the Municipal Corporation where he had been previously working. This purported to be a fresh appointment and so the appellant made a representation that he should be appointed in this post according to his seniority. No orders were passed on this representation except a direction that the appellant should join service within a week of receipt of the memo and then represent his c