Punjab-Haryana High Court
Basit Ali vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 January, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004128
{2024:PHHC:004128}
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-33099-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.01.2024
BASIT ALI ........Petitioner
V/s.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present: Mr. Rahul Dev Singh Sumbria, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishnav Gandhi, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner by way of this Writ Petition has prayed for
issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated
26.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-7A)
whereby he has been reverted back from the post of Instrument Supervisor to
Beldar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
working as Beldar and was further promoted on the post of Instrument
Supervisor vide order dated 02.11.2018. The petitioner had to approach this
Court as an order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the respondents reverting him
from the post of Instrument Supervisor to that of Beldar alleging that he had
not completed five years of service as Beldar at the time of his promotion and
in terms of Rule 14-A of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common
Service Rules), Rules, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1994"),
the order of promotion was liable to be withdrawn.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004128
{2024:PHHC:004128}
CWP-33099-2019 (O&M)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show cause
notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before reverting
him from the post on which he was already working and also drawing pay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was
passed in complete non-application of mind as Rule 14-A of the Rules of
1994 is with respect to the post of Clerks who are to be promoted to the post
of Senior Assistants. Whereas, there is no such requirement for promoting on
the post of Instrument Supervisor. The order, therefore, deserves to be
quashed.
5. Learned State counsel has been unable to explain from their
reply as to what is the basis of reversion of the petitioner from the post. It is
stated, however, that respondents have a right to cancel, withdraw or change
the promotion order of the petitioner without giving any notice and the
petitioner did not fulfil the conditions of service, and there was a resentment
shown by the PWD Field and Workshop Workers Union to the promotion
granted to the petitioner. In view thereof, the reversion orders were passed. It
is also stated that as per the official orders sent to the petitioner, the mention
of the Rules of 1994 is absent. It is stated that the order received earlier by
the petitioner which is impugned in the petition is not the original order, and
the order was inadvertently signed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the
order dated 26.09.2019 which wholly mentions that the order of promotion
given to the petitioner stands null and void due to non-fulfilment of the terms
and conditions of service. However, the respondents have not been able to
explain from their reply as to what terms and conditions were not fulfilled by
the petitioner.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004128
{2024:PHHC:004128}
CWP-33099-2019 (O&M)
7. It is apparently a case where under influence of the Union the
respondents have acted and reverted the petitioner from his post. Such
approach could not have been adopted as a substantive right is created in
favour of a person who is promoted and the same cannot be taken away
unless the due procedure of law is followed. The reason of resentment cannot
be said to be a cogent reason for reverting a person.
8. The principles of natural justice have also not been followed
while reverting the petitioner and the contention of the respondents that no
notice is required to be given before reverting a person is liable to be
rejected.
9. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Sughar
Singh, (1974) 1 SCC 218, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"In the instant case we have no doubt in our mind that the peculiar
circumstance that from out of a group of about 200 officers most of
whom are junior to the respondent, the respondent alone has been
reverted to the substantive post of Head Constable makes it
absolutely clear that there was no administrative reason for this
reversion. In fact there was no suggestion at any time made on
behalf of the appellant that the post has been abolished or that
respondent was, for administrative reasons, required to go back to
Ms own post of Head Constable. This circumstance only
corroborates what the learned standing counsel for the State
admitted before the High Court that the foundation of ,the order of
reversion is the adverse entry made in his character roll. In this view
of the matter, we have no doubt. that the order was passed way of
punishment, though all outward indicate show the order to be a mere
order of reversion. Even if it were not so, we have no doubt that the
order would be liable to be quashed on the ground of contravention
of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. In these circumstances, the
appeal mu% be dismissed with costs and we do so. State Of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors vs Sughar Singh on 22 November, 1973 Indian
Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1752052/ 13 Before parting
with this case, we think it only fair to mention that in Writing this
judgment we have derived considerable assistance from a draft of
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004128
{2024:PHHC:004128}
CWP-33099-2019 (O&M)
the judgment prepared by our late-.Brother Mukherjea, J., who
sitting with us, heard the case in the first instance."
10. In view of the above, the order of reversion dated 26.09.2019
(Annexure R-7A/Annexure R-4) is quashed and set aside.
11. In view of the above, interim stay granted by this Court vide
order dated 26.11.2019 of keeping the impugned order in abeyance, is made
absolute. The petitioner shall be allowed to draw all benefits for the post of
Instrument Supervisor and would also be entitled for any consequential
benefits of promotion.
12. All pending applications in this Writ Petition stand disposed of
accordingly.
January 12, 2024 [ SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
Ess Kay JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004128
4 of 4
