Sailendra Kumar Patnaik vs State of Orissa and Others

G.K. Misra, C.J.—Shorn of all details, the petitioner''s case, in short, is that he was a Kanungo in the Settlement Department. By a notification dated 24th November, 1965, (Annexure B), he was temporarily promoted as Assistant Settlement Officer. In the notification it was clearly stated that the appointment was purely temporary and terminable at any time without assigning any reasons. By another notification dated 28th December 1967, (Annexure D) he was reverted to the post of Kanungo, while some of his juniors were allowed to continue as Assistant Settlement officers.

Mr. Mohanty, on behalf of the petitioner contends that the reversion amounts to a punishment and as it was done without observing the principles of natural justice, the order of reversion is liable to be quashed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Orissa, it has been averred that while the petitioner was officiating in the post of Assistant Settlement Officer a review of his work was made by a Board and his work was found to be not satisfactory and he was considered to be unsuitable to continue in the higher officiating post.

Law is well settled that an officer officiating in a higher post has no right to the post. If he is found unsuitable for discharging the duties of the higher post, it is always open to the competent authority to revert him to the post from which he was temporarily promoted. If the reversion order is passed by way of a punishment casting stigma on the delinquent, the order cannot be sustained unless, an enquiry is made under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The competent authority has, however, full jurisdiction to review the work of the employee and come to its conclusion whether a particular employee is suitable for officiating in a higher post. Such a decision does not amount to punishment. No enquiry was, therefore, called for in this case. A Board examined the petitioner''s case and found that he was unsuitable for the higher officiating post.

On the aforesaid analysis, we find no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

B.C. Das, J.

I agree.