JUDGMENT
M.R. Agnihotri, J.
1. The petitioner has been in the service of Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri-in the State of Haryana. since 15th October, 1967. To start with he was appointed as Octroi Moharrir and after about fifteen years’ service, he was promoted as Inspector Octroi on 19th February, 1982.
2. At the time of his promotion as Inspector Octroi, his academic qualifications, experience and work and conduct were duly considered by the Administrator of the Municipal Committee and it was after thorough consideration of the necessary requirements, that the order of promotion was passed on 19th February, 1982. A copy of the order was also communicated to the Secretary to Government Haryana, Local Government Department, on 25th February, 1982, as also to the Director, Local Bodies Haryana. No objection whatsoever was received from any quarter to the promotion of the petitioner, excepting by Sh. Sadhu Ram, Clerk of the Municipal Committee, respondent No. 6 who had been reverted from the post of Inspector Octroi. According to him, as new service rules known as Haryana Municipal Services (Integation, Recruitment and Conditons of Service) Rules, 1982, had come into force before 19th February, 1982 the date on which the petitioner was promoted, the Administrator of the Municipal Committee was no longer the promoting authority and for that reason the order of promotion to the petitioner dated 19th February, 1982, was invalid, even though the Gazette copy of the new Rules was received by the Municipal Committee on 23rd February, 1982. In pursuance thereof, instructions were issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, to the Administrator, Municipal Committee. Charkhi Dadri, that with the enforcement of the Haryana Municipal Services Rules of 1982, the powers of appointment, promotion and transfer at the district level came to be vested with the Deputy Commissioner and that proposals regarding filling of the vacancies should be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for his consideration. On the representation made by Shri Sadhu Ram against the promotion of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, served a show cause notice on the petitioner on the June, 1988. In reply thereto, the petitioner brought it to the notice of the respondents that Shri Sadhu Ram, who was promoted as Inspector Octroi earlier, was reverted in pursuance of the decision of the Industrial Tribunal,’ Faridabad Against that reversion, Sadhu Ram filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed on 10th December, 1981. It was against that post that the petitioner applied for promotion on 23rd December, 1981. Hence promotion of the petitioner was in accordance with the rules in force at that time. Depite all this, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, on 26th August, 1988, set aside’ the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 19th February, 1982, and reverted him to the post of Octroi Clerk. Apprehending his reversion, the petitioner approached Civil Court for grant of injunction also but finding no success, he has challenged the impugned order of his reversion by way of the writ petition, mainly on the ground that since the post of Inspector Octroi was in existence prior to 15th February, 1982, when the new Rules came into force, that post could still be filled by the competent authority mentioned under the old rules, no matter the actual order of promotion was issued later than the publication or enforcement of the new Rules.
3. In the written statement, the factual position has been admitted and the only plea aken by the respondents is that after 15th February, l982, when the new rules had come into force, the order of promotion of the petitioner issued on 19th February, 1982, was illegal and had been rightly set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani on 26th August 1988, by the impugned order.
4. Having gone through the relevant records and after hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law at all. Mr. Sunil Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, is right in his submission that prior to 15th February, 1982, when the new Rules known as Haryana Municipal Services (Integration, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982, came into force, the Administrator, Municipal Committee, was fully competent to make appointments, promotions and transfers of the municipal staff. Therefore, the post of Inspector Octroi against which the petitioner was promoted on 19th February, 1982, was, in fact, in existence since 1981 after the reversion of, Sadhu Ram, respondent No. 6 as the industrial Tribunal as well as the High Court in 1981 had held his reversion as legal. It was precisely that very post of Inspector Octroi against which the petitioner had submitted his application for promotion on 23rd December, 1981. If with the enforcement of new rules, the procedure for filling the vacancies had undergone a change, the old vacancies, which were in existence before the enforcement of the new rules, could still be filled in accordance with the rules, regulations and practice prevailing before 15th February, 1982, the date of enforcement of the new rules. For this proposition, strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Sunil Gaur on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Y. V. Rangoiah and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 852, in which it was held by their Lordships that “the vcancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules” Supreme Court in the said case held the impugned order of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Inspector Octroi deserves to be set aside on this gound alone.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that if at all, the respondents had found that while the case of promotion of the petitioner was still in the pipeline and the new rules were published in the Gazette on 15th February, 1982 (copy whereof was received by the Municipal Committee, Chakhi Dadri, on 23rd February, 1982, that is, four days after the order of promotion of the petitioner bad been issued by the Administrator of the Municipal Committee on 19th February. 1982, it was the fittest case for the relaxation of the rules to avoid hardship to the petitioner.
6. I find considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel, as the promotion of the petitioner was otherwise in accordance with the principle of seniority-cum merit and his eligibility, suitability and efficiency had to be fully recognised by the employer. In these ciacumstances, it was wholly unfair on the part of the respondents to revert the petitioner in 1988, that is, more than six years after his promotion and that too on a wholly hypertechnical ground which, in fact, is irrelevant and non-existent.
7. Consequently, I allow this writ petition and by issuing a writ of certiorari quash the impugned order dated 26th August, 1988, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, by which the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Inspector Octroi to that of a Clerk, and by issuing a writ of mandamus restore him back to the post of Inspector Octroi along with consequential benefits of arrears of salary, allowances, seniority, etc. with effect from the date of his reversion. The petitioner, shall also be entitled to the benefit of increments and pay fixation in the pay scale of Inspector Octroi with effect from the date of his promotion, that is, 19th February, 1982, to which the petitioner would have been entitled in law had the impunged order of reversion not been passed. However, there is no order as to costs.