UNION OF INDIA Vs. GAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by special leave, by the Union of India and the Financial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh, are from a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner Himachal Pradesh, allowing Civil Writ petitions Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25 of 1965 filed by the respondents and quashing the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, 2nd appellant, reverting the respondents to the posts of Kanungos. As the facts in all the appeals are similar, we will deal with Civil Appeal No. 314.

(2.) The respondent was a permanent Kanungo in the Revenue Department. He was promoted on March 26, 1962, to officiate as Naib Tehsildar under para 37 (ii) of Standing Order No. 12, passed by the 2nd appellant. He was reverted from the officiating post to his substantive post on June 1, 1965, for the reason that he did not pass the departmental examination of Naib Tehsildar within the period prescribed in para 34 of the Standing Order.

(3.) The respondent contended in the writ petition that he was entitled to continue in the post of Naib Tehsildar until a qualified person became available that no qualified person was available when he was reverted, that since he was promoted under para 37 (ii) of the Standing Order, he could not have been reverted for the reason that he did not pass the departmental examination as the passing of the departmental examination was not necessary in the case of Kanungos promoted under para 37 (ii) of the Standing Order to officiate in the post of Naib Tehsildar. He further contended that Kanungos junior to him who were promoted to officiate in the post of Naib Tehsildar were retained in the posts of Nabi Tehsildar and that has resulted in the loss of his seniority in the substantive rank of Kanungo and hence the reversion amounted to a reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. So, according to the respondent, he should have been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the reversion and since such an opportunity was into given, the order of reversion was bad. The respondent also contended that the retention of his juniors in the post of Naib Tehsildar was violative of his fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.