VISHNU KACHRUMAJI SONI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 2814 of 1983, 900 of 1983, 901 of 1983 and 2812 of 1983, which involve common questions of law.

(2.) It appears that by an order dated 16-7-1976, the State Government decided to separate the Handloom Department from the administrative control of the co-operative department and created a Directorate for that purpose (Annexure-I). As a result of creation of this Directorate, all employees who were working in the handloom department, were transferred to the administrative control of the Director of Handloom. The petitioners, withoutany protest, accepted the said transfer and worked with the new department. It appears that while working, the petitioners were required to apply for selection to various posts created by the Handloom Directorate. They, accordingly applied and were selected by a selection committee on the basis of merits. Ultimately, by an order dated 3-9-1979 (Annexure-5), the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a senior Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 350-550. The other two petitioners were similarly appointed as Division Auditors by order dated 24-12-1979. It appears that by a subsequent letter, the petitioners, on 28-8-1981, were ^iven on option to merge in the Handloom Directorate. It is the averment of the petitioners that they opted for the service of the Directorate and continued working there. It appears to be reasonable also, because the petitioners had, by then been selected and appointed on a post carrying higher payscale. It appears that on 15-2-1983, the respondent Registrar, Co-operative Societies, passed an order (Annexure-17) informing that the petitioners'service have been obtained from the Handloom Directorate and they were placed in different positions. As a consequence of this order, the Directorate of Handloom issued an order on 17-2-1983, relieving the petitioners and others from their positions. These petitions are filed by the persons so relieved. The petitioners challenge the legality of the order dated 15-2-1983 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure-17) and the order dated 17-2-1983 passed by the respondent- Directorate of Handloom (Annexure-16). It appears that inspite of the aforsaid, the petitioners have not joined their positions in the co-operative department as, on 2-3-1983, they were informed that they will be taken back on the same post in which they were working in the year 1976 (Annexure-19).

(3.) The submission of the petitioners is that they have joined the newly set up Directorate of, Handloom on there be own as free-will and with the consent of the respondent-Government and have earned their promotion/ appointment to a higher post. Their reversion to the co-operajtive department, by the impugned order, on a lower post, is arbitrary and without any justifies-; tion. They challenge the legality of the order of their re-patriation as wholly unauthorised and otherwise violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The case of the respondents, however, is that even though the petitioners were, handed over to the newly created Directorate, they retain their lien in the parent department and, hence, they have rightly been re-called. It is also submitted that the parent department is restoring them to the same position in which they' were in the year 1976 ; and, hence, no injustice is being done to them.