Sukhjinder Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer. He was promoted as an Assistant Engineer vide order dated August 29,2000. Less than a year later, he was ordered to he reverted vide order dated August 6, 2001. Aggrieved by the order of reversion, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. It is alleged that the action is violative of the principle of natural justice as n 6 opportunity was granted to the petitioner before he was ordered to be reverted. It is further maintained that two posts are available. Thus, the petitioner could be adjusted against one of those posts. On this basis, the petitioner claims that the order of his reversion (a copy of which has been produced as Anncxure P-4 with the writ petition) be quashed.

We have heard Mr.R.K.Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice. He relies upon the decisions in Virendra Kumar Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1995(4) SCT 71 SC Butwant Singh Katari v. State of Haryana 1997(3) SCT 475 P&H and Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj v. The Haryana Institute of Public Administration, Gurgaon 2000 (4) SCT 21. He further submits that since two posts are available, the petitioner could be adjusted against one of those posts.

A copy of the order of promotion has been produced as Anncxure P3 with the writ petition. A penisl! of this order shows that the petitioner''s promotion was specifically made subject to "the outcome of Court cases/Departmental enquiries pending against his seniors". It was further stipulated that "in this eventuality Shri Sukhjinder Singh shall have to vacate the post of Assistant Engineer". Admittedly, the departmental proceedings against the persons senior to the petitioner have been dropped. Resultantly, they have been ordered to be promoted. The petitioner has been reverted to make room for one of them. In this process, no illegality has been committed. The petitioner has been reverted in strict conformity with the terms of his appointment.

Mr. Arora contends that the action is violative of the principles of natural justice. We find no ground to sustain this objection. The promotion having been made subject to the rights of the seniors, the petitioner is bound by the terms of his appointment, Principles of natural justice are not attracted in such a situation, Resultantly, the petitioner can derive no advantage from the decisions relied upon, wherein the factual position was totally different. None of these cases relates to the reversion in conformity with the terms of the order of appointment.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel has contended that the posts are available, Thus, the petitioner should be adjusted against one of those posts.

We find no warrant for holding that the petitioner''s reversion is illegal merely cause some posts are available in the department. It is for the competent authority to consider whether the work load justifies the filing of all the posts or not. An order of reversion cannot be anulled or said to be vitiated merely because the posts are available. If the work load does not justify the filling up of more posts, the authorities cannot be compelled to fill up the vacancies. Resultantly, the availability of the posts does not furnish any ground to the petitioner to seek the quashing of the order of reversion.

No other point has been urged.

In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere. Rcsultant''ty, Hie petition is dismissed in limine.

Sd/- Ashutosh Muhunla, J.