AB SAMAD BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was promoted as B. C. G. Team Leader from the post of B.C.G. Technician vide order No; 74/NG of 1981 dated 2 -2 -1931. The promotion was, however, subject to learned selection by the Department Committee and clearance from the Vigilance Department, The pay scale of the B C.G. Team leader at the relevant time was 280 -520 and against that pay scale the petitioner was adjusted in his own pay and grade. It transpires that respondent No; 4 made a representation to the Government bringing it to the notice of the Government that the J&K Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation) Rule, 1970 had not been folio wed while making the promotions to the post of B.C.G. Team leadere and that he had a right to promotion on the ground that he belonged to Scheduled caste. The Director Health Services accepted that representation, and directed the petitioner to be reserved to his post of B.C.G. Technician. The petitioner is aggrieved of that order or reversion.

(2.) THE precise grievance of the petitioner is having been once promoted to a higher pest, even though temporarily the petitioner could not be reverted on the acceptance of the representation or appeal of respondent No. 4, without the petitioner having been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and showing cause against his reversion or to the acceptance of the representation/appeal of respondent No. 4.

(3.) M /S S. D. Sharma and V. K, Gupta, who appear for the respondents -State and Rattan Lal respectively did not dispute the factual assertion that before passing order of reversion No. 377/NG of 1981 dated 9 -4 -1981, no hearing had been provided to the petitioner even though the said order was passed on the basis of a representation made by Shri Rattan Lal respondent No. 4. They, however, submitted that since it was brought to the notice of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir that while making the promotion of the petitioner, the J & K Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation) Rules, 1970, had been ignored, the mistake was ratified and under the circumstances, no hearing was required to be given, and that in any event if hearing had been granted, the petitioner could not have am valid reason to oppose the acceptance of t he representation of respondent No. 4.