KRISHNA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common point of law that is involved in this group of writ petitions centers around the question that has really been set at rest by the Apex Court in the decision in State of Karnataka and Others v B. V. Thimmappa and Others. As far as the present group of petitions are concerned, we are simplifying the issue to the extent of pointing out that the question arose as to whether police constables who have been accorded concession of promotions on their having passed the qualifying examination in relation to their proficiency in Kannada language who do not pass the requisite examination within the prescribed period of time are liable to be reverted. The State Government had proceeded on the assumption that since the Government had made a concession and allowed certain categories of employees to avail of their promotions provided they pass the qualifying examination within the prescribed period of time, and who defaulted were liable to be penalized or in other words, that they were liable to be relegated to the original position by virtue of the fact that they had not acquired the requisite qualification and the apex Court had occasion to consider the point of law and has laid down in no uncertain terms that the relevant rules do not prescribe for reversion and that consequently, the only disadvantage which the employee may incur is in relation to the prospective benefits but that it would be impermissible to revert the employee despite the fact that the qualification has not been acquired. The law on the point has virtually been set at rest and it is really the ratio of this judgment which applies to the present set of petitions.

(2.) WE need to record here that the impugned orders do undoubtedly state that the promotion was conditional, a time period was set and that the order before us prescribes that it would be self-operative insofar as the employee was put on notice of the fact that if he did not acquire the qualification within the prescribed period of time that he would go back to his original post. The Government accordingly passed an order reverting the employees in question and they challenged the action before the KAT. The Tribunal upheld the Government's action, against which order the present set of writ petitions have been directed. The only submission canvassed by the learned Counsel who represents the petitioners and all that is necessary from their point of view is to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court whereby they have contended that the order of reversion is bad in law, that the law as laid down by the supreme Court binds the State Government and that consequently the order of the KAT is liable to be quashed and set aside and that the orders of reversion are also liable to be quashed.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate did vehemently try to defend the orders even to the extent of submitting that when the earlier cases went upto the Supreme Court, that there were not clean and clear-cut orders of reversion and that the present cases are distinguishable insofar as the promotions were conditional and that consequently, it would have to be held that the petitioners were only promoted, occupied the higher position for a prescribed period of time and that the order would be self-operative and that consequently there is no positive act of sending the employee in the reverse direction which is an essential ingredient of a reversion order. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Government Advocate very carefully but we find that no hair splitting can be indulged insofar as the point of law is concerned insofar as once the Supreme Court has very clearly laid down that a reversion on these grounds is impermissible, what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly by any such means. Consequently, applying the dictum of the Supreme Court the orders passed by the tribunal in the earlier two sets of writ petitions before us are quashed and set aside. The orders of reversion passed by the State in relation to these petitioners are accordingly quashed and the petitioners would be entitled to the consequential benefits.