AHYODHYA PASWAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 4th Nov., 1976, passed by the District Controller of Stores, North Eastern Railway, Samastipur (respondent No. 2) by which he reverted the petitioner from the post of Material Checker (to which post he was promoted on officiating basis) to his substantive post of Khalasi, as the petitioner was found 'unfit for the job' (Es pad ke liye ayogya paye jate hain).

(2.) Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, challenged this order mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) the petitioner had acquired a right to hold the post on account of the expiry of the period of probation of one year and, therefore, the order amounted to reduction of his rank which could not be done without following the principles laid down in Art. 311 of the Constitution and, (2) the order contained a stigma against the petitioner and it could not have been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.

(3.) In order to appreciate the questions raised for our consideration, we may state the relevant facts in brief. The petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi on 30-10-1955 in the North Eastern Railway and was working in the office of respondent No. 2. Later on he was confirmed in the post and was also found suitable for promotion to the next higher post of Material Checker. The petitioner was temporarily promoted to officiate as Material Checker in the leave vacancy of one Yakub Indar, a Material Checker who had gone on leave for forty five days with effect from 28-7-1975 to 11-9-1975, by an order dated 29th July, 1975 (Annexure-2). It is, however, not dear as to what happened after the expiry of the aforesaid period of forty five days but it appears from another order dated 23-4-1976 (Annexure-3) of the same officer that the petitioner continued to officiate even thereafter in the post of Material Checker. But as to whether he continued as stop-gap arrangements from time to time on officiating basis of was promoted on probation is not clearly stated anywhere. It was, however, contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and conceded on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was promoted to the said post on probation. But whereas according to the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the period of probation started right from 29th July, 1975, according to the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, that could not be said to be so inasmuch as, that order clearly stipulated that the promotion of the petitioner was merely as an ad hoc arrangement and he was promoted only on officiating basis in the leave vacancy of Sri Yakub Indar. as already mentioned above.