KISHORI LAL KAPOOR Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India and has been filed by Shri Kishori Lal Kapoor agafnst the Lieutenant- Governor Himachal Pradesh and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) The petitioner was a junior clerk in the Himachal Pradesh secretariat in the year 1950 and was confirmed in the year 1952.

(3.) The Co-operative and Supplies Department Himachal Pradesh invited applications for the posts of auditor and with the permission of the then Chief Secretary to the Himachal Pradesh Administration he applied for one of those posts and was selected by a Selection Board presided over by the then Home Minister. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies Himachal Pradesh through the Officer-on-Special Duty to Himachal Pradesh offered to the petitioner one of the posts of auditor subject to certain conditions mentioned in the office order copy of which is Annexure 'A' to the petition. The offer was accepted by the petitioner and he joined his new appointment on 7th January, 1954. His lien on the post of the junior clerk in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat was maintained for such period as he be not confirmed by the Co-operative and Supplies Department. He worked as District Audit Officer in various districts with effect from 13-1-1954 to 19-2-1959 when he was reverted to the substantive post held by him in the Secretariat vide office order dated 6-2-1959 copy of which is Annexure 'B' to the petition and against that order he made a representation to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies which was rejected. He submitted an appeal to respondent No. 1 which was also rejected and the order of rejection was communicated to him by memorandum dated 3-12-1960. Thereafter he submitted a memorial to the President of India which was withheld by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The petitioner's contention is that he was not on deputation with the Co-operative and Supplies Department and had been working in the said department against a permanent post and in any case had acquired a quasi-permanent status and as such he could not have been reverted without having been afforded opportunity to show cause against the proposed reversion. Along with the petitioner two other persons one of whom was previously in the Industries Department were selected for the cost of an auditor and in the final list of seniority prepared the petitioner was placed at No. 2. His contention is that his work had all along been satisfactory and he could not be reverted while a junior to him continued to work at the post. The order of feversion is also challenged by him on the score of being discriminatory.