CWP No. 221 of 1993 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 221 of 1993
Date of Decision: 23.4.2009
Satya Varat Arya ......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Parveen Rohilla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Rathee, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral).
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated
22.12.1992 (Annexure P.5), whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post
of Junior Engineer.
The petitioner was promoted in November, 1981 from Junior
Engineer to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer on adhoc basis. Another
order was passed on 26.2.1992, granting adhoc promotion to the petitioner
as Sub Divisional Engineer. Vide order dated 2.12.1992 (Annexure P.4), the
petitioner was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer. The petitioner was
reverted from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer to that of Junior
Engineer, vide order dated 22.12.1992 (Annexure P.5).
CWP No. 221 of 1993 (2)
The stand of the respondents in the written statement is that
certain candidates were promoted vide order dated 2.12.1992 against the
quota meant for them being AMIE, but the petitioner was not AMIE. The
petitioner was considered for promotion against the quota post of Junior
Engineers to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer, subject to his suitability.
The petitioner was not found suitable for promotion by the Screening
Committee, on the basis of his record for the relevant period. However, Shri
Vishwamitter, junior to the petitioner, was found suitable on the basis of his
record. It is alleged that the petitioner was not found suitable for regular
promotion in the meeting of the Screening Committee held in the year 1980.
It is also pointed out that the record of Vishwamitter was better than that of
the petitioner and there were charge sheets pending against the petitioner.
The order of reversion was passed without providing any
opportunity of hearing or show cause notice. Thus, the said order vitiates
the principles of natural justice.
The order of reversion (Annexure P.5) was stayed by this Court
ad-interim on 6.1.1993, which order was made absolute after hearing
learned counsel for the parties on 19.5.1993. The petitioner has attained the
age of superannuation after the order of reversion was stayed. Therefore,
the order of reversion cannot be sustained, as such order was passed without
giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 22.12.1992 (Annexure P.5) is set aside.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
23.4.2009
ds