ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Petitioner was employed and posted as Senior Clerk in Indian Lac Research Institute, Namkum, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Institute’). One K.L. Chowdhury was also working there as Senior Clerk and was senior to the petitioner.
2. One Sudarsan Ram, who was senior to K.L. Chowdhury along with R.K. Upad-hyay, N. Topno (Scheduled Tribe) and Md. Mobarak, who were junior to K.L. Chowdhury were promoted to the next higher post of Assistant by upgradation with effect from 6.11.1998. Later on the petitioner as well as one B.K.Rajak (Scheduled Caste) were also promoted to the post of Assistant with.effect from 28.11.1998.
3. By office order dated 1.12.1998, Issued by the Administrative Officer of the Institute, K.L. Chowdhury was communicated the reason for which the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend his case for promotion/up-gradation from the post of Senior Clerk to the post of Assistant. By communication he was also wanted and was directed to improve his conduct towards the duty and not to repeat grave mistakes in future. K.L. Chowdhury filed representation against the said communication, which was rejected on 15.3.1999. He thereafter filed OA No. 305 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing those orders dated 1.12.1998 and 15.3.1999 and for directing the authorities to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant with effect from 6,11.1998, the date from which his juniors were promoted. By order dated 15.5.2000 the Tribunal quashed those orders dated 1.12.1998 and 15.3.1999 and directed the authorities to reconsider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and to pass appropriate orders. Thereafter the matter was considered by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi and the Institute was directed to follow the Tribunal’s order and reconsider his case.
4. Simultaneously, the Institute was directed to ensure that the total number of up-gradation including that of K.L. Chowdhury should not exceed the number of posts approved for up-gradation by the Council, which might result into reversion of the junior most person on his promotion. On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, an office order was issued on 14.8.2000 upgrading K.L. Chowdhury to the post of Assistant with effect from 6.11.1998.
5. The Director of the Institute in his letter dated 24.4.2000 to the Under Secretary (Engg.) Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi informed that total sanctioned strength of the post of Assistant was 13 (thirteen) in numbers, which were already filled up and only a post of Junior Accounts Officer (F & A) in the same scale of pay was lying vacant since long. It was, therefore, suggested that for the time being K.L. Chowdhury may be promoted against the said post of Junior Accounts Officer, till a regular post of Assistant becomes available on retirement/superannuation of an Assistant on 30.4.2001. Request was, therefore, made to obtain Council’s approval in this regard and communicate the same to the Institute immediately.
6. By another letter dated 18.9.2000, the Director of the Institute made request to the Council for creation of supernumerary posts of Assistant with effect from 28.11.1998, which was examined by the Council but not accepted. Consequently, the promotion of K.L. Chowdhury on 14.8.2000, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Assistant to the post of Senior Clerk.
7. The petitioner against the order of his reversion filed O.A. No. 4 to 2001 befpre the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on 17.4.2001. The Tribunal held that the petitioner’s prayer for setting aside his reversion was devoid of merit. However, the excess amount paid to him on the promoted post of Assistant was held to be not deducted from his salary. The Tribunal’s order has been Impugned in the present writ petition.
8. Mrs. M.M. Pal, petitioner’s counsel submitted that since the petitioner was not a party in OA No. 305 of 1999, he ought not to have been reverted, consequent upon its earlier order dated 15.5.2000, without giving any notice and/or hearing him. It was further submitted that an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice, after informing a person concerned and also after giving an opportunity of being heard. When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Such order is bad from the very beginning and cannot be validated by additional grounds later brought out by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge.
9. On scrutiny, we find that in all there are nine sanctioned posts of Assistants in the Institute, out of which six posts fell vacant. On 6.11.1998, four persons, namely, S.Ram, R.K. Upadhhyay, N. Topno and Md. Mubarak were promoted and, thereafter, A.K. Choudhury was promoted with effect from 6.11.1998, pursuant to the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Again on 28.11.1998 two persons, namely, Vijay Ram, the petitioner and P.K. Rajak were promoted. P.K. Rajak was promoted on the reserved post for Scheduled Caste. Consequently the petitioner being the junior most among the aforesaid persons was reverted. Later or. 30.4.2001 and 30.6.2001 two posts fell vacant, which were filled up on the basis of the quota of 25% by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination confined to U.D.C., with at least three years’ regular service in the grade. One post was kept vacant to be filled up by direct recruitment under 25% quota on the basis of result of open competitive examination of ASR..’ Out of the two posts, which fell vacant respectively on 30.6.2002 and 31.1.2003, one has to go to the candidate under 50% by promotion from U.D.C at the respective Headquarters Institute having five years’ regular service in the grade on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
10. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, whereby the petitioner being the junior most at the relevant time was reverted from the post of Assistant However, the Authority concerned is directed to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Assistant in accordance with law in 50% quota basts.
11. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with above direction. No costs.