GOVERDHAN AHIRWAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.1995 by which the promotion orders of the petitioner as ad hoc Draftsman as also his posting as Revenue Inspector and the regularization of the petitioner as Draftsman have been cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that before issuing the said orders opportunity of hearing was not extended to him so that he could explain the reason as to why such orders were issued giving him ad hoc posting and promotion.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1978 on the post of Tracer. He was working as such when certain posts of Draftsmen became available. In terms of the instructions issued by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, M.P. Gwalior, on 04.02.1977, since there was a vacancy of the post of Draftsman the petitioner was posted as such vide order dated 27.12.1988. Later on, since there were posts of Revenue Inspector available in the Settlement branch it appears that the Settlement Officer, Sagar asked for the consent of the persons like petitioner for their posting as Revenue Inspector. The petitioner gave his consent and accordingly order was issued on 01.07.1990 posting the petitioner and one other Draftsman as Revenue Inspector. A specific condition was mentioned in the said order that the petitioner was required to pass the Revenue Inspector examination within two years or else he was to be reverted back to his substantive rank. It is the case of the petitioner that he has passed the said examination as was notified on 05.02.1994. Subsequent to this posting an order was issued on 13.06.1991 by the Settlement Officer, confirming the petitioner on the post of Draftsman by regularizing his promotion which was earlier made on ad hoc basis. The pay fixation was also done accordingly by the order of the competent authority on 12.08.1991.

(3.) UPON issuance of notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed the return contending inter alia that the Tracer was not to be promoted on ad hoc basis in the manner the petitioner was promoted and as such the initial posting of the petitioner as a Draftsman, in the garb of his ad hoc promotion was not proper. The authority, who has issued the order was not competent to do so. Even otherwise, without following the procedure of promotion, ad hoc promotion order was not required to be issued. When all these facts came to the notice of the authorities of the State, after scrutiny of the records and the orders issued by the incompetent authority, the Commissioner Land Records and Settlement exercised his power and set aside the order of illegal promotion of the petitioner as Draftsman. A Draftsman cannot be posted as Revenue Inspector as both the posts are in different stream and are not interchangeable. That being so, if the illegality committed by the subordinate authorities, were rectified by the competent higher authority, opportunity of hearing was not required to be given to the petitioner. If something which was not available under the law was granted to the petitioner by an authority, and if such a wrong was remedied by the respondents -authorities subsequently it cannot be said that the rules of natural justice are violated, inasmuch as opportunity of hearing is not required to be granted, in such a case.