PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he rejected the petition of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant, in his petition prayed that his reversion from the post of Naib Tehsildar to his substantive rank of Kanungo was illegal and void.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as a patwari in the joint Punjab on April 16, 1941. He was promoted as Kanungo on July 26, 1947. On the partition of the country, he migrated to East Punjab and was posted as Patwari in District Hissar, but was later on promoted as a Kanungo with effect from March 1, 1948. He continued working in this post till July 25, 1955. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Colony Naib Tehsildar on July 26, 1955. Subsequently he was appointed as Section Officer in the Rehabilitation Department which post he held upto February 29, 1964. The appellant claims that he was appointed as officiating Naib Tehsildar with effect from April 13, 1964, and the period from March 1, 1964 to April 2, 1964, spent by him was considered to be on leave. According to the State, the appellant was reverted to the post of Kanungo with effect from March 1, 1964, and he was appointed as officiating Naib Tehsildar with effect from April 13, 1964. Later on he was reverted to the post of Kanungo by an order dated October 13, 1971, and this is the order which he challenged before the leaned Single Judge.

(3.) The principal contention that was advanced before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant had the right to be considered for the post of Naib Tehsildar before the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which came into force with effect from 1st November, 1956 any rule subsequent to that date would not affect his right to continue as a Naib Tehsildar. This contention is based on the plea that the appellant had the right to be promoted as a Naib Tehsildar before the Reorganisation Act came into force and that right would not be affected by any amendment of the rule of the standing orders providing for a qualifying examination for being accepted as a Naib Tehsildar candidate. It is common ground that the appellant had failed to pass the departmental examination. It is also admitted that the appellant was not accepted as a Naib Tehsildar till the date of his reversion.