( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE appellant was employed as an Inspector in the Central Excise Department. On 20-8-1952 the Central Government issued a notification declaring that it had created a selection grade of excise Inspectors and the selection grade would constitute 15 per cent. of the total cadre of inspectors. In pursuance of the above notification on 27-2-1953, the Collector of Central Excise allahabad, passed an order appointing the appellant and 59 others to the selection grade, and these appointments were to take effect from 1-8-1952. In making these appointments the Collector had passed over a number of Senior Inspectors and they made a representation to the Central Board of Revenue and to the Government of India against the appointments made by the Collector. The representations were considered by the government and it came to the conclusion that the Collector had not made the appointments on proper basis, as he had not taken seniority into consideration at all and the selection should have been based on consideration of seniority and fitness both. Accordingly the Government wrote to the Collector on 7-8-1953 informing him that the basis of selection adopted by him was incorrect. He was asked to review his orders and make fresh appointments after applying the test of seniority-cum-fitness. He was also directed to issue notices to the persons appointed by him to the selection grade to show cause why the orders appointing them be not reviewed and their appointments cancelled. The Collector accordingly gave notice on 21-10-1953 to the Inspectors appointed by him to the selection grade asking them to show cause why their appointments be not cancelled. Some of the Inspectors submitted their explanations, and on 10-11-1953 the Collector passed an order reverting 40 persons to their previous post of Inspectors.

( 3 ) TWO of the reverted Inspectors filed two writ petitions in this Court against the order of 10-11-1953, and two points were urged on behalf of The petitioners at the time of the hearing of the petitions. The first point was that the Collector, after having appointed the petitioners to the selection grade, had no jurisdiction to review the order subsequently and to revert them to the post of Inspectors (ordinary grade ). The second point was that this reversion amounted to reduction in rank within the meaning of the expression as used in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, and no proper opportunity to show cause against the proposed reversion having been given to the petitioners the order of their reversion was void. The learned Judge decided both the points against the petitioners and dismissed their petitions by his judgment dated 25-3-1955. This appeal is by one of the petitioners, namely, Sri G. K. Sinha.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant in the beginning submitted both the above points before us, but later on, in view of the decision of the Privy Council in the case of R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State, 1937 All LJ 213: (AIR 1937 PC 31) (A) he conceded that the first point really had no force and confined his submissions to the second point, namely, the invalidity of the reversion order because of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. On this point the learned counsel submitted that the appellants reversion amounted to reduction in rank as he had been demoted from the post of Inspector (Selection Grade) to the post of Inspector (ordinary grade), and this reversion has further resulted in the reduction of his salary. It has also been argued that after the first notice having been sent to the appellant on 21-10-1953 and after taking his explanation, another notice should nave been given to him to show cause why he should not be reduced in rank.

( 5 ) BUT we think the case does not fall under Article 311 (2) at all, as the