P.K. Singhal vs Nattional Airport Authority And ...
1992 Latest Caselaw 467 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) The petitioner was working as Deputy Director (Communications) and vide order dated 7th October, 1991 be was appointed as an Airport Director at Srinagar. The letter of appointment stated that his appointment was on ad hoc basis till further orders and that his appointment will not account for the purpose of seniority nor make him eligible for promotion to the next higher grade. Vide order dated 15th June, 1992 the Petitioner was posted to Madras as Deputy Director (Communications) with immediate effect. It is this letter which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.

(2) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon C.B.Dubey & Ors. Vs, Union of India & Ors. 75 Slj 634 and Kuldeep Chand Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration. 1978(2) Slr 379, is that the petitioner could not have been reverted to his substantive post except for one of the four reasons mentioned in C.B. Dubey's case. Reliance in C.B.Dubey's case (supra) is placed on the following passage at page 638: "8.ANofficiating or ad hoc or a temporary appointee who does not have a right to hold a post can be reverted only for valid reasons such as, (1) if a person is not found fit to hold a post, (2) if a person having a lien on that post returns to that post, or (3) a person who is senior or higher in merit according to the same selection replaces such a person in that post or (4) in exigencies of public service. Otherwise, an officiating person cannot be reverted without any rhyme or reason."

(3) The aforesaid observations in C.B.Dubey's case were following by another Division Bench of this Court m.Kuldeep Sharma's case (supra) and it was added therein that "An ad hoc appointment, though by its nature a precarious tenure, nevertheless carries a limited right to that extent and if such an appointee is reverted without a valid reason, he would be entitled to challenge it and seek an enforcement of the right."

(4) The contention, of the learned counsel is that the petitioner had been interviewed before he was promoted and that his promotion was regular.

(5) The post of Airport Director, according to the respondents, was created on an experimental basis and in an effort to bring about economy, it was proposed that a Deputy Director be posted as Airport Director and the post of Deputy Director be not filled and the said incumbent should look after both the jobs. It is further averred that the posts were created on ad hoc basis at selected aerodromes and the petitioner was also appointed on ad hoc basis.. The reason for reversion of the petitioner has not been spelt out in any great detail but in the reply which has been filed it has been stated that Srinagar being a high security risk area exceptional diligence was expected "in-maintaining security measures at the airport, It is further averred that the respondents received some confidential Communication expressing doubts about the maintenance of such security measures and thereafter the respondents thought it best that the. petitioner be sent back to his parent cader of Deputy Director (Communications). The confidential communication has not been placed on record because of the very nature of the communication specially as it deals with a sensitive station like Srinagar in the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

(6) The post of Airport Director which was created is an ex-cadre post. The petitioner, therefore, had no right to be appointed to an ex cadre post. There were no rules and regulations for appointment to the. said post and the appointment of the petitioner was purely Ob ad hoc basis and until further orders. According to the respondents they have faced certain difficulties' in the working of the said post and the scheme itself is under review by a high powered committee consisting of independent management experts. The petitioner, therefore, had no right, for appointment to the said post and nor could he claim a right to continue therein specially when his letter of appointment clearly stipulated that his appointment was till further orders.

(7) At this stage we would also like to clarify that the aforesaid observations in C.B.Dubey's case (supra) do not mean that there are only four circumstances under which an officer can be reverted from an officiating or ad hoc or a temporary appointment. The use of the words "such as" clearly indicates that what was mentioned in the said passage was merely illustrative. This is made clear when in the last sentence it is mentioned that an officiating person cannot be reverted without any rhyme or reason. What this passage meant is that there must be a good and valid reason for the reversion of an ad hoc employee. In other words, the action of revertion should not be arbitrary. The four examples given in C.B.Dubey's case cannot be treated as being exhaustive. Similar is the view which we express with regard to Kuldeep Sharma's case (supra).

(8) In the present case we find that valid reasons have been given by the respondents for reverting the petitioner. The action of the respondents cannot be termed as arbitrary. The petitioner who belongs to a regular cadre was appointed on ad hoc basis and till further order to an ex cadre post and he has now been reverted to his regular past of Deputy director (Communications) because the very scheme Under which he was promoted is under review. It is also indicated in the reply that there was a particularly good reason for removing the petitioner from a sensitive area like Srinager.

(9) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by stating that for security reasons the petitioner was removed and reverted to his Substantive post would amount to imposing punishment on the petitioner. He further contended that in the reply affidavit it has been stated that there were certain lapses on the part of the petitioner which could lead to security problems in a sensitive place like Srinagar and that is why he was sent back to his parent post.

(10) In C.B. Dubey's case it has been stated that there has to be good valid reason for reverting an employee. In the examples given, one of the circumstances is "if a person is not found fit to hold a post". We have already observed that reversion cannot be without any valid ground. It there is no reason for reversion it will amount to an arbitrary action.

(11) If a person who is appointed on ad hoc basis is reverted without any reason then the same would be quashed as being arbitrary. On the other hand if there is a reason for his reversion viz., that he was not found fit for the post, it cannot be said that there must be held a regular inquiry in order to judge his fitness. By stating that there were lapses on his part amounts to the formation of an opinion that he was not found suitable for the post. As an Airport Director security is an important aspect and if there are any lapses qu a security arrangements it would amount to the person, who is responsible thereto, as not being suitable to hold the post. We do not think under these circumstances if can not be said that there is any punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner. He was an ad hoc employee but has not been found suitable to bold the post which had been created purely as an experimental measure.

(12) For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It, is accordingly dismissed with costs. Interim orders are vacated.