An order of reversion of an approved probationer from a higher post to a lower post, which visits the probationer with penal consequences, such as loss of emoluments and chances of promotion, amounts to a reduction in rank and attracts the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Mr. Justice Jaganmohan Reddi, issuing a writ of Certiorari quashing the proceedings of the Government, dated the 3/12/1960, in Memorandum No. D-35789/59-21.

( 2 ) FOR a proper appreciation of the contentions raised before us, it is necessary to set out the history of the service of the respondent in chronological sequence. He was appoined as an officiating clerk on 23/07/1940, by the Inspector of Salt, Kanuparti. He served in the Salt Department, though not continously, till 14/06/1941. Thereafter his services were transferred to the Factories Department where he completed his probation on 2/12/1942. He was thereafter appointed as an acting clerk in the Taluk Office, Sattenapalli, till he was appointed as an election revenue inspector in an officiating capacity on 19/12/1945. On 6/08/1949, he was promoted as an upper division clerk in the Collectors Office, Guntur, in which capacity he was in the service of the revenue establishment of the Guntur district till 2/12/1953. In the meantime, on Ocotber, 1, 1953, the State of Andhra was ushered into existence and the respondent, among other applicants, sought a transfer to the Andhra Secretariat service. There he was entertained as an upper division clerk in the Revenue Secretariat on and from 7/12/1953. At the time of his transfer from the Guntur revenue establishment to the Secretariat, it would appear that the Government were not aware of the fact that he had not the requisite minimum educational qualification of a degree as required by Andhra Secretariat Service Rules. The respondent was therefore reverted to the revenue establishment of Guntur district with effect from 9/02/1955. As a result of the representations made by the respondent to the Government, they relaxed the rule of the minimum general educational qualification in favour of the respondent so as to enable him to be appointed by transfer to the Secretariat Service by G. O. Ms. No. 1207 Revenue dated 26/05/1955. Accordingly, the respondent joined the Secretariat service on 30/05/1955. His services were regularised in the category of upper division clerk (category 2 of the Andhra Secretarial Service) with effect from 30/05/1955. (Vide G. O. No. 15 Revenue dated 28/02/1956 ). By a Memorandum dated 24/12/1956, he was declared to have satisfactorily completed the prescribed period of probation in the category of upper division clerk in the Andhra Secretariat Service, on 29/05/1956. His pay in the Revenue Secretariat was fixed at Rs. 95. 00 with effect from 30/05/1955, and at Rs. 100. 00 with effect from 1/09/1955. Subsequently he earned some increments, and his pay was fixed at Rs. 105. 00 with effect from 1/09/1956, in the revised scale of 100-5-120-10-200. By a memorandum dated 3-12-1960, he was reverted to the Guntur revenue establishment. Shortly thereafter, on 26/12/1960, the respondent filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises.

( 3 ) THE main ground on which the petition was resisted was that the order of reversion deprived him of the benefits of the service in the Revenue Secretariat with its higher emoluments which would amount to a reduction to a lower rank and that as he was not afforded an opportunity as required by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, read with the statutory rules, the said order should be vacated by the issue of a Writ of Certiorari.

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by them, the Government contended inter alia that the respondents transfer from the Secretariat Service, where he was only an approved probaticner, to his permanent post in the district revenue establishment, was perfectly legal and valid and that the same was done on administrative grounds.

( 5 ) AFTER an elaborate consideration of the respective contentions of the parties, the learned Judge held that as the respondent "has acquired a substantive right as an approved probationer in the secretariat service, he cannot