ABHILASH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Mr. A. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, as sails the impugned orders dated 29-8-1997 contained in Annexures-7 and 8 respec tively to the Writ Petition, by which the petitioners were sought to be reverted from the post of Revenue Inspector to the post of Lekhpal.

(2.) THE impugned orders of reversion are being challenged by the learned Coun sel on the ground, firstly that before issu ing the order of reversion, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners; secondly, the petitioners having been al lowed to work for more than four years on the promotional post, the petitioners could not be reverted at all even if the appointment was illegal and thirdly, that the order of promotion does not indicate that the promotion was on ad hoc basis or by way of a local arrangement, therefore, reversion on the ground that promotion was made by way of a local arrangement, cannot be sustained.

(3.) MR. Choudhery secondly contends that for appointment to the post of Revenue Inspector, qualification of train ing is necessary, which the petitioner do not possess and therefore no such promo tion could be made. It is further submitted that by virtue of their promotion which is wholly contrary to the rules, the petitioners cannot acquire any right to continue on the said promotional post. It is next submitted that by virtue of Rule 6 of U. P. Subordinate (Revenue Service Super visor Kanoongo) Service Rules, 1977 (herein-after referred to as the Rules), the promotion in question is non-est and there is no necessity of affording any kind of opportunity of hearing before reversion.