- (1.)The appellant before us joined the establishment of the respondents on 1.1. 1969 as work-charged T-mate along with other persons who are named in para 6 of the writ petition filed before the High Court. All of them except the appellant continued to work in that capacity till 19.5.1995 when they were promoted as assistant linemen. On account of certain contingencies arising in the establishment of the respondents, the appellant was appointed as work- charged lineman in 1970 and from 3.4.1979 he was appointed as ad hoc lineman. The post of lineman, being two stages higher than of work-charged T-mate, certain complaints were made. The respondents therefore took action by issuing show cause notice to him as to why he should not be reverted to the post of assistant lineman and thereafter passed an order on 19.11.1998. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the said order. On its dismissal, this appeal is preferred by special leave.
(2.)The principal contention advanced by the appellant before the High Court is that he had been appointed as a lineman on ad hoc basis from 3.4.1979 and all those who had joined along with him in service had been appointed as linemen w. e. f. 17,12.1997. Therefore, the appellant claimed that at least his case should have been considered w. e. f. 17.12.1997 and appropriate seniority in the cadre of lineman should have been accorded to him. The high Court, however, is of the view that since he is not qualified to be appointed and there is no material to show that those who had been appointed were qualified or not, it denied the relief sought for by him. The fact, however, remains that the appellant had been appointed along with several others in the post of work-charged T- mate on 1.1. 1969 and they had been promoted as assistant linemen and thereafter, as linemen w. e. f. 17.12.1997. If the appellant had not been promoted as lineman earlier, which was not his fault, he could have been promoted as assistant lineman and thereafter, as lineman. When the respondents had not appointed him as an assistant lineman, earlier they cannot expect from him that he should be serving in that capacity before his case could be considered for lineman. It is not in dispute that several persons appointed along with appellant are illiterates. Hence, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court upholding the order, reverting the appellant to the post of lineman w. e. f. 17.12.1997 and accord such benefits that would flow therefrom. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.