(1.) Through this writ filed in the nature of certiorari, the petitioner has called into question order dated 15.4.2006, wherein the petitioner, who, was officiating in the cadre of STS of ITS Group A in local arrangement was reverted to his original post of Senior Divisional Engineer (SDE) with immediate effect. He was, however, directed to look after the work of Divisional Engineer, (DE (OD) KKD) without any extra remunerations till further arrangement. Initially, the petitioner joined the services on 24.12.1974 as Engineer Supervisor in Indian Post and Telegraph Department. The said post was re-designated as Junior Engineer against the post of Junior Telecom Officer. The petitioner was promoted from the post of Junior Telecom Officer to the post of Senior Divisional Engineer on 24.12.1990. He was again promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer vide order dated 8.1.2002. On 30.3.2006, 48 officers were promoted from the post of Senior Divisional Engineer to the post of Divisional Engineer. Again, 200 junior officers to the petitioner are working against the post of Divisional Engineer with full remunerations.
(2.) In its counter affidavit the respondent has explained that the petitioner was working on local officiating basis and he was given local officiating promotion for a limited period of 180 days. Consequently, the reversion to the original post is neither illegal nor unjust nor arbitrary. The petitioner was issued a chargesheet under Rule 27 of M.T.N.L. CDA Rules and as such it was necessary to revert the petitioner to his substantive cadre.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the above said stand. He defended the reversion order on the ground that serious charges have been levelled against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of this Court in case Ram Prasad versus M.T.N.L. and others in WP(C) 2766/2004 and CM 2540/2004, the relevant part runs as follows :-