JASBIR SINGH BEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of a learned Single Jadge dismissing apetition filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution challenging an order made on 2nd February, 1965, by which ho was reverted from the post of Vigilance Inspector to his parent department In the Northern Railway with immediate effect.

(2.) The appellant was appointed in the East Punjab Railway as ft Clerk in the grade of Rs. 55-130 on 1st October, 1951. The Government of India, Railway Department, invited recommendations from all heads of departments to fill up vacancies of Vigilance Inspectors, in the grade of Rs. 300-400 as also in the grade of Rs. 260-350. According to the appointment order dated 16th August, 1960, which has been reproduced in the judgment of the learned Judge, the appellant was appointed as a Vigilance Inspector in the prade of Rs. 260-350. Shri S. C. Misra, Section Controller, grade : Rs. 200-300 who was described as 'at present officialiting as Vigilance Inspector, grade: Rs. 300-400 (an ex-cadre post)" was reverted to his parent department with immediate effect. Shri B. K. Dasi Malhotra Vigilance Inspector, grade.-Rs 260-350, was to be promoted as Vigilance Inspector, grade; Rs. 300-400, in place of ShriS.C.Misra. The appellant, who was a Clerk holding the grade of Rs. 60-130, was promoted as Vigilance Inspector in the grade of Rs. 260-360 in place of Shri B. K. Dass Malhotra. He continued to work in that post till the, impugned order was made on 2nd February, 1965.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge two matters appear to have been seriously pressed. The first was that the appellant, having been appointed to the post of a Vigilance Inspector in a substantive capacity, could not have been reverted to the post which he was entitled to hold in his parent department, in the way in which it was done. In other words, the case of the appellant was, and is, that since he was a permanent incumbent, he could not be reduced in rank without complying with the provisions of article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The learned Judge, after considering the material, to which his attention was invited, formed the opinion that if was not posible to determine that issue in a writ petition, as it would have to be elaborately considered on the basis of evidence, and the materials placed before him were not adequate enough to enable him to determine whether the appellant had been appointed in a permanent capacity, as was being claimed by him, or whether he had been appointed only temporarily, as was the case of the respondent.