G SATYANARAYANA Vs. PRL DIRECTOR IN CHARGE NISIET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Office Order No3 (4)/ 1/91-Estt/860 dated 25-10-1993 of the Principal Director-in-Charge, National Institute of Small Industry Extension Training, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, is being questioned in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this petition may be summarised thus: The petitioner joined the 1st respondent institution on 22-5-1964 as Stenographer/ Typist and was promoted as Head Clerk on 1-3-1971 and thereafter promoted to the post of Superintendent on 1-3-1978. He also worked as Canteen Manager (Group B post) as well as Stores Officer. Afterwads for three years i.e., from 1987 to 1990 he worked as Purchase Officer-in-Charge and then as Section Officer on ad-hoc basis for six months. It is averred by the petitioner that by the Office Order No.3(4)/l/91-Estt/360 dated 1-7-1992 issued by the 1st respondent, he was promoted on temporary officiating basis as Hostel Warden till regular selection to fill the post was made or until further orders whichever is earlier. It is further averred by him that thereafter by the impugned orderdated 25-10-1993, he was communitcated that the competent authority had decided to abolish the post of Hostel Warden and as a consequence of which, he was reverted to his substantive post of Superintendent with immediate effect. The petitioner has questioned the said impugned order in this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit stating therein that the petitioner was temporarily promoted as Hostel Warden and, in the normal course, if the post was to continue, he would have been considered for regular appointment as Warden, but, since it was decided by the Executive Committee to abolish the post of Hostel Warden the services of the petitioner were reverted from the temporary post he was holding to his substantive post of Superintendent. It has further been averred by the respondents that the authority which has power to create a post could also abolish the same. It has thus been prayed that the petition is liable to be dismissed.