KOCHITTY PANANKULATH CHACKO Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer to his parent post of Sub-Assistant Engineer, re designated as Junior Engineer, under Annexure-5 is under challenge in this writ application.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Overseer under the Utkal University by order dated 1-10-1964, annexed as Annexure-2/a and was confirmed in the said post with effect from 5-11-1964 by order dated 21-3-1973, annexed as Annexure 2/b. Thereafter he discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities and in accordance with the decision of the syndicate of the University dated 3.7.1982 and as per the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 10-7-1982, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on trial basis for a period of two years by the Registrar's letter dated 12-7-1982, annexed as Annexure-3. It was stated therein that he was kept under observation for a period of two years from the date of his promotion. Before his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer as per Annexure-3, he had officiated in the said post and remained in charge for a period of 3 years from 19-7-1970 to 9-7-1982, as has been alleged in the writ application. After expiry of two years from the date of promotion, he was continued in the said post on trial basis for a further period and ultimately he was reverted by order dated 26-5-1986, annexed as Annexure-5. The petitioner contends that though there was nothing adverse against him and though he was duly promoted yet for extraneous reasons he has been reverted and, therefore, the reversion cannot be sustained. When the writ application was listed for admission on 29-5-1986 this Court had stayed the order of reversion and pursuant to such order of stay, the petitioner has been continuing in the post of Assistant Engineer. Thus, in fact, the petitioner has been continuing in the promoted post of Assistant Engineer ever since 12-7-1982.

(3.) The University has filed a counter affidavit and the stand of the University in the counter-affidavit is that the Local Fund Audit in course of audit report had pointed out that the petitioner did not possess the qualification to hold the post of Assistant Engineer and since the Syndicate has not waived the qualification, the petitioner was reverted. It has been further urged that the petitioner has no right to the promoted post since he was promoted only on trial basis and the order of reversion being innocuous and it is neither a punishment nor any stigma is attached, the same cannot be interfered with. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit and has appended a document of the University, annexed as Annexure 12, which shows that the petitioner has been exonerated of the charges lenelled against him and the departmental proceeding drawn against him has been dropped by only warning the petitioner.