JUDGMENT
R.C. Gandhi, J.
1. This Letter Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 28-12-2002, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, SWP No. 1682/01.
2. Briefly put the facts are that the appellant, a Post-Graduate Teacher (Statistics), was put Incharge of the post of Lecturer (Statistics) in his own pay and grade, with the benefits of charge allowance, as admissible under these rules, for a period of six months or till the post is filled up by the Public Service Commission/D.P.C. Whichever is earlier. He was put in this arrangement alongwith twelve other persons vide Govt. Order No. 949 -Edu. of 1999 dated 10-07-1999. Subsequently, the Government issued order No. 1318-Edu of 2001 dated 28-09-2001, reverting the appellant back to his substantive post of teacher making the post available for seniors, who, because of the pendency of some enquiry against them, could not be put as Incharge Lecturers. The said respondents have been now considered and the appellant, being junior most, has been reverted back to his substantive post making way for the seniors to hold the post of Lecturer.
3. Appellant challenged this order in the writ petition on the grounds that he has been demoted. Learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the petition observing that the appellant has no enforceable right to hold the post of Lecturer as the seniors to the appellant have been rightly adjusted against the post, having prior right of their adjustment.
4. Aggrieved of the order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been preferred challenging the correctness and legality of the order on the same grounds as set-out in the writ petition. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant at the bar that the respondents, who have been made Incharge Lecturers, being seniors, were not eligible.
5. We have perused the pleadings contained in the writ petition. No averments relating to this aspect have been made in the writ petition. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is, admittedly, junior to those who have been now promoted, reverting the appellant to his substantive post.
6. On appreciation of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the point in controversy is not res integra and has been settled by numerous judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts. In the exigency of service and in public interest such arrangements are required to be made to run the teaching administration. Such an arrangement does not vest any right, muchless a preferential one, to continue against the post. The appellant is, admittedly, junior to the respondents. Though he was put incharge of the higher post yet the seniors cannot be ignored and the appellant being junior cannot be permitted to continue at the cost of his seniors. Seniority is a condition of service and cannot be ignored. Such an arrangement does not vest any right in the appellant to hold the higher post. It has been settled by the Supreme Court in Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1145, wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under :
“…….Asking an officer who substantively holds a lower post, merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion. In such a case, he does not get the salary of the higher post ; but gets only that in Service parlance is called a ‘charge allowance’. Such situations are contemplated where exigencies of public service necessitate such arrangements and even consideration of seniority do not enter into it. The person continues to hold his substantive lower post and only discharges the duty of the higher post essentially as a stop-gap arrangement.”
7. In paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment, their lordships further held as under:
“The third contention is that appellant’s in charge arrangements in higher post had continued for so long a period that the determination of the equivalence on the basis of his lower substantive post would become arbitrary. This contention ignores the fact that an ‘incharge’ arrangement is not a recognition of or is necessarily based on seniority and that, therefore, no rights, equities or expectations could be built upon it. The third contention is also unmeritorious”.
8. This view has been again reiterated by Supreme Court in Sreedam Chandra Ghosh v. State of Assam, (1996) 10 SCC 567, with the following observation:
“……..AS having been seem from the record, it was only a stop-gap arrangement made of the petitioner to officiate as Headmaster till the regular incumbent assumes offices as Headmaster. Therefore, he does not have any right to the post to hang on after the regular incumbent has been transferred to the post.”
9. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant has been reverted has no force or substance. Appellant was not substantively promoted. He was asked only to hold the charge of higher post. Relieving such a Government employee from the charge of a higher post to give way to his senior does not amount to any reversion or penalty or abrogation of the fundamental right in terms of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. The appeal, being meritless is dismissed accordingly.
