UNION OF INDIA Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the applicant (respondent No. 1) does not press this application as she submits that the said respondent wants to approach the departmental authorities to seek relief in respect of the points raised in this application. The application is dismissed as not pressed. LPA 104/75

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22nd September, 1975 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CW 773/75. By this judgment the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order of reversion of respondent No. 1 from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time there were no statutory regulations in the office of the appellants for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Respondent No. 1 who is an engineer graduate and was working as Section Officer (Electrical) was promoted temporarily and on ad-hoc basis as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) along with four others on January 7, 1972 pursuant to the recommendation of the departmental promotional committee which selected respondent No 1 and certain others for the aforesaid ad-hoc promotion in its meeting held on 22nd December, 1971. Admittedly respondents 4 to 8 were subsequently promoted, also on a temporary ad-hoc basis to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on different dates between February 1972 to November 1973. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 9th January, 1975 was reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) whereas respondents 4 to 8, who were admittedly promoted subsequently, were retained in service against the said post. Respondent No. 1, therefore, challenged the order of reversion mainly on the ground that the said order was inviolation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the principle of "last come first go" was not followed and his juniors who were also promoted on temporary and ad-hoc basis were retamed against the said post. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of reversion of respondent No. 1 on the ground that certain officers who have been promoted on ad-hoc basis like the petitioner subsequent to the promotion of the petitioner cannot be preferred to petitioner. The learned Single Judge also held that the appellants had failed to place on record any exraordinary circumstances or exigencies which may justify a departure from the principle of "last come first go".