BIKASHINDU DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legitimacy of the order dated 11.4.88 passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, the respondent No.3, vide office order No. E/74/F dated 11.4.88, Annexure - F to the writ petition reverting the petitioner along with two other persons is the subject matter of the Civil Rule. By the impugned order Respondents 4 to 13 were promoted to the rank of F.S.O. and consequently reverting the petitioner along with two others from the post of S.F.O. to the substantive post of Habildar (Fire). The petitioner was initially appointed as Rakshak/ Fire on 21.3.74 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Head Rakshak/ Habildar (Fire) vide order dated 24.9.80 after due selection. The next promotional post was Sub-Inspector Protection Force/Fire briefly described as SIPF/Fire which was a Group-C post. According to the petitioner inspite of availability of clear vacancies which were required to be filled up by promotion, the. Railway authorities did not hold any selection test for the posts as per the Rules and by an order passed in April, 1983, vide Annexure 'A' to the petition, the petitioner was promoted to the post of SIPF/Fire on ad-hoc basis with effect from 23.4.83. The petitioner claims that the ad-hoc promotion was given to him on finding him suitable for the post

(2.) A seniority list was annexed to the petition as Annexure 'B' showing the name of the petitioner at serial number 51. In June 1986 the respondents decided for holding a selection test for promotion to the rank of SIPF/Fire in the scale of Rs. 330-560/- for filling up 14 vacancies. Accordingly a notification was issued by the Railway on 30.6.86 calling upon 42 candidates for interview which was to be held on 19th and 20th July, 1986. According to the petitioner subsequently the authority decided, to fill up 15 posts instead of 14 and accordingly called upon 3 more other candidates for the interview. The Railway Authority, however, abandoned the selection process. The Railway Authority subsequently held a selection for filling up 20 posts without calling upon the petitioner for the said selection test and promoted 10 persons without considering the case of the petitioner. By impugned order dated 11.4.88 the respondents 4 to 13 were promoted reverting the petitioner to the lower post. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner has assailed his reversion mainly on the strength of a circular of the Railway Board regarding continuous holding of a post on ad-hoc basis for a period of 18 months or more. According to the petitioner the aforesaid circular conferred a right on such person who was continuously holding a post on ad-hoc basis for a period of 18 months or more gives a prescriptive right on the petitioner and such person can only be reverted in terms of the circular that is by drawing up appropriate proceeding against such person. Admittedly no such proceedings had been drawn. The petitioner, apart from the circular, also relied upon a decision of this Court in Civil Rule No. 159 of 1975.