O.P. Arora vs State of Haryana and Another

Ritu Bahri, J.—In the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 01.08.1996

(P-7) whereby the petitioner had been ordered to be reverted from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer to that of Junior Engineer. The petitioner

was appointed as Junior Engineer on 23.08.1973. He was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer on 06.04.1990 (P-1). In the promotion order, the

promotion was stated to be temporary and on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months and till the duration of Action Plan, whichever is earlier. The

seniority list was issued in the year 1996 (P-2) and the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 128. The petitioner had maintained the good

service record after his promotion. Vide order dated 01.08.1996 (P-7), the petitioner was reverted from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer to

Junior Engineer. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that it was issued without show-cause notice. The

petitioner had completed 6 years of service. Some persons junior to the petitioner are still working on current charge duty. The petitioner was not

facing any charge sheet or punishment order so as to pass the reversion order.

On notice, a reply has been filed by the respondents stating therein that promotion order dated 06.04.1990 (P-1) was on ad hoc basis. As per

roster, the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer against vacancies w.e.f. 06.01.1995 for the officials

possessing AMIE/BE qualification. The suitability criteria for promotion as per the Government instructions dated 21.05.1973 and 09.05.1985 (R-

1 & R-2), the official should have at least 70% or more reports of the ""Good"" or better category during the last 10 years without any adverse

remarks about integrity. Thus, the petitioner was not found suitable for the promotion to the post of S.D.E. because of the following remarks in his

A.C.R. for the year 1992-93:--

You have not maintained your reputation for integrity. A case of malpractice and embezzlement is on record.

These remarks were duty conveyed to the petitioner, vide P-4 dated 23.11.1994.

The initial promotion of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis and after considering his case for regular promotion, he was reverted. There was no

requirement of issuing show cause notice before reverting him as for regular promotion he was not found fit.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in G.S. Ramaswamy and Others Vs. Inspector-general of Police, Mysore, has held that promotion on a temporary

or officiating basis does not give a right to an employee to continue on the said post after his work is found to be unsatisfactory. Their right of

confirmation would depend upon the assessment and their work, therefore, mere continuing on a post on ad hoc or temporary basis will not give

right to claim to seek a promotion as a matter of right.

Hon''ble Rajasthan High Court in a case of Khem Singh Deora Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, has held that he reversion order can be of

two types one being simpliciter in nature and one being punitive. The temporary promotion given to an employee is subject to approval by

Selection Board and if such promotion was not approved, order of reversion does not suffer from infirmity. In paras. 19 and 20, it has been held

as under:--

Apart from this, reversions are of two types; (i) reversion simpliciter and (ii) reversion by way of punishment.

The reversion which is a natural consequence of application of the relevant rules and is not penal would be a reversion simpliciter and is to be

considered as an incident of public service. Hence, reversion of ad hoc promotees to their substantives posts or of a probationer during the

probationary period if his work is found unsatisfactory or of a temporary appointee from a temporary post or of an officiating appointee to his

substantive rank after being found unsuitable by the Public Service Commission for being absorbed substantively are all instances of simpliciter

reversion. In this respect, the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ramaswami v. I.G. of Police may be referred to.

In the present case, the petitioner was given ad hoc promotion on 06.04.1990. However, when his turn came for regular promotion on

06.01.1995, he had a reverse entry in his A.C.R. in the year 1992-93 as per P-4. Thus, he was not given regular promotion, in view of the

instructions dated 21.05.1973 and 09.05.1985 (R-1 & R-2). Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.