MANOJ KUMAR LAHARIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

(2.) No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this petition, since the facts are admitted and unfolded. Admittedly, the petitioner was serving in the State of Chhattisgarh on the post of Constable; he submitted an application to allocate his services on mutual basis to the State of Madhya Pradesh on the post of Constable in the year 2005. In the meantime, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the State of Chhatisgarh, thereafter vide impugned order dated 1-6-2010 the petitioner's service has been allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh but on the post of Constable.

(3.) According to me, the action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but de hors to the promotion rules. Had the petitioner been allocated the State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 2005, when he submitted requisite application while he was serving on the post of Constable on mutual basis, the matter would have been; certainly different, but after a lapse of five years, when the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Head; Constable, if his service has been allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh on the post of Constable I am of the view that it amounts to reversion because allocation would not only put the loss of the pay scale, but in the cadre also. Therefore, he cannot be reverted to the post of Constable putting him the loss of the pay scale but in the cadre also.