ARUN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) to which the petitioner was promoted on a temporary and ad hoc basis, to the next lower substantive rank of Sectional Officer (Electrical) is discriminatory.

(2.) The facts leading to the petition lie in a narrow compass and may be briefly stated. The petitioner is an Engineering Graduate and was working as Sectional Officer (Electrical) on Jan. 7, 1972 when by an order of that date, (Annexure A) he was promoted temporarily and on an ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) along with four others pursuant to the recommendation of the Department Promotion Committee which selected the petitioner and certain others for the aforesaid ad hoc promotion in its meeting held on Dec. 2, 1971. In the said meeting the Departmental Promotion Committee assessed for the purpose of selection 14 candidates, 5 belonging to the category of Graduate Sectional Officers, to which the petitioner belongs and 9 to the category of non-Graduate Sectional Officers. Respondents 3 to 9 belong to the second category and were among the 9 belonging to that category who were considered at the said meeting. the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the top three in the first category and the top three in the other category. The petitioner is at serial No. 3 in the fist category. By the order of promotion (Annexure A) all the three belonging to the first category and the top two in the second category were promotees. The two promotees belonging to the first category are shown as senior to the petitioner and have not been impleaded. The two promotees out of the other category who are shown junior to the petitioner have been impleaded as respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It however, appears that respondent No. 5 to 9 were subsequently Promoted on ad hoc basis oil different dates, between Feb., 1972 to Nov., 1973 either on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee a that may have been may subsequently or otherwise.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he was among the five who were promoted on a temporary and ad hoc basis to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by order of Jan. 7, 1972 (Annexure A) and was put at serial No. 3 in the order in accordance with the order in which his promotion was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee, referred to above. The petitioner further contends that number of ad hoc promotions were made subsequent to the promotion of the petitioner and four others by the aforesaid order and that some of these promotions were made as late as the year 1973. The petitioner, therefore, contends that assuming that Shri J. N. Gupta, who was sought to be absorbed in the vacancy caused by the transfer of A. P. Chaudhary and who was sought to be absorbed in the post from which the petitioner was reverted, were regular promotees even though promoted before the promulgation of of the Rules, the petitioner could not be reverted until all the ad hoc promoters who are junior to the petitioner as ad hoc promotees had been reverted and that. therefore, in reverting the petitioner while retaining respondents 3 and 4 who are shown as junior to the petitioner in the order of Jan. 7, 1972, and respondents 5 to 9 who were promoted after Jan. 7, 1972 were still retained in the said posts. The petitioner, therefore, claims that the petitioner has been discriminated against in the matter of reversion and there has been a violation of the rule of 'last come first go.'