DAVENDER BANSAL Vs. BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, BHIWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10035 of 1990 (Davender Bansal v. Board of School Education, Haryana, etc.) and 10036 of 1990 (Randhir Singh v. Board of School Education, Haryana, etc.) as the facts involved in both the writ petitions are almost common and the question of law is also identical.

(2.) Both the petitioners before us in these cases are employees of the Board of School Education, Haryana. Randhir Singh petitioner is M.Sc. B.Ed. with Diploma in Computer Sciences and was appointed by the Board as System Executive in its Computer Cell on 16th October, 1987, and was confirmed after one year on 16th December, 1988, whereas petitioner Davendar Bansal is a graduate with Mathematics and Economics with Diploma in Computer Programming. He was appointed to the post of Computer Operator, on 12th February, 1987. On 24th November, 1989, Randhir Singh was promoted to the post of Senior System Executive whereas Davender Bansal was promoted on the same day as Senior Computer Operator. They were placed on one year's probation which was to expire on 23rd November, 1990. Both the petitioners continued to work on the aforesaid posts right till 19th July, 1990, when they were reverted to their original posts with immediate effect on the ground that their work and conduct had not been found satisfactory during the probation period. It is this order of reversion dated 19th July, 1990, passed by the Chairman, Board of School Education, Haryana, which has been challenged before us on the grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness, discrimination and being violative of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned order of reversion.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the Chairman, Board of School Education, Haryana, the allegations of mala fides have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioners proved to be incompetent and their work was not upto the mark. It has further been pleaded by the respondent in both the cases in identical terms that the petitioners "committed such misdeed by which the Board has to face a sorry figure before the public", and that "a person can be reverted at any time during probation if his work and conduct is unsatisfactory and if he commits wrong, there is no fun to approve his wrongs and to await the end of the probation; he can be reverted at any time even during the period of probation.