Union Of India And Anr. vs Arun Kumar And Ors.
1991 Latest Caselaw 544 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) The learned counsel for the applicant (respondent No. 1) does not press this application as she submits that the said respondent wants to approach the departmental authorities to seek relief in respect of the points raised in this application. The application is dismissed as not pressed. Lpa 104/75

(2) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22nd September, 1975 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Cw 773/75. By this judgment the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order of reversion of respondent No. 1 from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).

(3) The brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time there were no statutory regulations in the office of the appellants for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Respondent No. 1 who is an engineer graduate and was working as Section Officer (Electrical) was promoted temporarily and on ad-hoc basis as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) along with four others on January 7, 1972 pursuant to the recommendation of the departmental promotional committee which selected respondent No 1 and certain others for the aforesaid ad-hoc promotion in its meeting held on 22nd December, 1971. Admittedly respondents 4 to 8 were subsequently promoted, also on a temporary ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on different dates between February 1972 to November 1973. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 9th January, 1975 was reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) whereas respondents 4 to 8, who were admittedly promoted subsequently, were retained in service against the said post. Respondent No. 1, therefore, challenged the order of reversion mainly on the ground that the said order was in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the principle of "last come first go" was not followed and his juniors who were also promoted on temporary and ad-hoc basis were renamed against the said post. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of reversion of respondent No. 1 on the ground that certain officers who have been promoted on ad-hoc basis like the petitioner subsequent to the promotion of the petitioner cannot be preferred to petitioner. The learned Single Judge also held that the appellants had failed to place on record any extraordinary circumstances or exigencies which may justify a departure from the principle of "last come first go".

(4) Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside inasmuch as there is no question of any inter se seniority in case of ad-hoc appointees who were appointed on purely temporary and ad-hoc basis. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 having come against the graduate quota according to the administrative decision taken by the Government pending formulation of the Rules does not have any right of being retained as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) particularly when he was not found qualified for appointment under the Recruitment Rule which were framed subsequently. We, however, find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Admittedly at the relevant time there were no statutory Rules/Regulations for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and the learned counsel for the appellants cannot rely upon the Regulations which were framed subsequently and were made applicable only prospectively.

(5) The point raised in this appeal is fully covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in G.S. Ramaswamy v. The Inspector-General of Police Mysore State, Bangalore, . In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the usual principle Is that the junior most persons among those officiating in clear or long term vacancies are generally reverted to make room for the senior officers coming back from deputation or from leave etc. Further ordinarily as promotion on officiating basis is generally according to seniority, subject to fitness for promotion, the juniormost person reverted is unusually the person promoted last. This state of affairs prevails ordinarily unless there are extraordinary circumstances. This proposition of law has been reiterated in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991(1) Jt 109. In this case also the Supreme Court has held that if out of several employees working in a department a senior is found unsuitable on account of his work and conduct, it is open to the competent authority to terminate his services and retain the services of juniors who may be found suitable for the service.

(6) In the present case it is not the case of the appellants that respondent No. 1 was reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on the ground that he was found unsuitable on account of his work and conduct. The present case is, therefore, not, covered under any extraordinary circumstances justifying the reversion of respondent No. 1 from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and retention of his juniors against the said post.

(7) In the result the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.