AB SAMAD BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Ab Samad Bhat
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full 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.
The short question, which, therefore, requires determination is, whether the petitioner was entitled to be heard before he was
reverted and if so, whether by not granting him an opportunity of hearing
there has been a violation of the Rules of natural justice? In my
opinion, the answer to the question has to be in the affirmative.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.