S P SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition could be related as under. The petitioner was working as Sub Inspector upto April 1983. By order dated 10/3/1983 the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Inspector. The petitioner had passed the Promotion Course required for the purpose of eligibility of promotion as Inspector. In January 1984 the petitioner was reverted to the post of Sub Inspector. Subsequently, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order of reversal on the ground that he was promoted on rank basis and cannot be reverted and that is illegal. The case of the respondents is that as per the rules the petitioner in the promotion post was to be on probation. His performance was not satisfactory and, therefore, he was reverted and he was not confirmed in the post of Inspector. Under Rule 19 of the CIFS Rules 1969 the petitioner had to undergo probation for a period of two years. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner had no right to the post of Inspector as if he had been appointed on permanent basis.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Puri submitted that the petitioner was not even served with order of reversal. That is not correct. The petitioner himself had made a representation and a copy of the representation is available on the files produced by the respondents. Therefore, the order of reversion cannot be challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it was not communicated to him. The petitioner cannot claim to have been appointed without any probation and, therefore, the order of reversion was in accordance with law and the petitioner cannot challenge the same.