C V SATHEESHCHANDRAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) After the acceptance of the reversion of the appellant by the respondent Bank, the appellant was relieved on 28.10.1999. Prior to that, an application was moved by the appellant on 7.6.1999 to the effect that he may be permitted to withdraw the request for his reversion. The respondent Bank did not accept the request made by the appellant. That led the appellant to approach the Court by filling a writ petition. It was contended in the writ petition that the conditions regarding permanent forfeiture of promotion and ineligibility to get stagnation increments are the conditions which marred the prospects of the petitioner in his service career and are unconstitutional and, therefore, be struck down. It was also contended that the petitioner"s request of withdrawal of his request for reversion should have been considered by the Bank and appropriate order passed. The petitioner prayed for quashing of the order of reversion passed by the respondent Bank reverting him to the clerical cadre. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition refusing the prayer for quashing the reversion order.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed a writ appeal. The writ appeal was allowed by judgment dated 6.11.2003 and the Division Bench of the High Court held that the appellant was entitled to stagnation increments and there was no justification for forfeiting his chances of promotion to the officer"s cadre. The order of reversion of the appellant was also set aside and the respondent Bank was directed to post the appellant as an officer of the Bank with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, the respondent Bank filed a review petition praying for review of judgment dated 6.11.2003 passed by the writ appeal court. The review court found factual errors in the judgment and on the basis of such factual errors, the application of law was found to be improper, and with these findings, the Court came to the conclusion that the judgment of the Division Bench allowing the writ appeal was not in accordance with law. On that basis, the judgment of the Division Bench in writ appeal was set aside and in consequence thereof the writ petition filed by the appellant dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the present appeal.