Alagiriswami, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing in limine the appellant's writ petition for quashing an order reverting him from the post of Legal Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal to his parent office. The appellant was working originally as an Assistant in the office of the Chief Engineer, P. W. D., Irrigation Branch, Haryana at Chandigarh. On 8th October 1971 the Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to Government, Legislative Department. Haryana wrote a letter to all administrative departments and Heads of Departments in the State informing them that it had been decided to fill in some posts in the Law Department by selection of qualified candidates from amongst the Government servants working in other departments and that for the present the tenure of those posts was one year only and the candidates would be appointed on an ad hoc basis. In pursuance of that letter the appellant applied for the post and he was appointed on 10th February 1972 as Legal Assistant on ad hoc basis in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar. He was transferred to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal on February 17, 1972. As already stated, he was reverted to his parent office on the 27th of April 1972.
(2.) To the writ petition questioning his reversion he impleaded the following as parties: 1. State of Haryana through the Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to Government, Law and Legislative Department. 2. The Secretary to Government of Haryana, Local Government Department. 3. The Advocate General of Haryana. 4. The Deputy Advocate General of Haryana. 5. The District Attorney, Karnal. 6 Mr. G. L. Nanda, M. P. and Chairman, Kurukshetra Development Board. 7. The Secretary Kurukshetra Development Board. 8. Mr. Pritam Singh Jain, Advocate. 9. Mr. H.V. Goswami, Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. 10. The Office Superintendent, Dy. Commissioner's Office, Karnal. 11. The Chief Engineer, P. W. D., Irrigation Works, Haryana, Chandigarh. The appellant alleged in the writ petition that the order of reversion was the outcome of a conspiracy of Respondents Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10. The circumstances which led to his reversion seem to be as follows:There was a writ petition No. 707 of 1972 against the Kurukshetra Development Board of which Mr. G. L. Nanda, M. P. was the Chairman. The appellant sent a report to Mr. Nanda making insinuations against certain officers including the Secretary of the Kurukshetra Development Board. He also went and met Mr. Nanda in person without the directions or the permission of the Deputy Commissioner of Karnal under whom he was working. The Deputy Advocate General wrote to the Secretary of the Law Department that the appellant's work was not only perfunctory but below average. Thereupon the Secretary spoke to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal to find out his views about the performance of the appellant and the Deputy Commissioner told him that he was dissatisfied with the work and performance of the appellant. It is on these grounds that the reversion was made.
(3.) In his counter affidavit the Secretary of the Law Department stated that the appellant had been reverted on account of his poor performance as Legal Assistant and denied the allegation of conspiracy made by the appellant. The Advocate General filed a counter affidavit denying that the appellant had brought to his notice the damaging portion of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Mr. Nanda in writ petition No. 707 of 1972. Mr. Lamba, Deputy Advocate General denied that the impugned order was made on the basis of his personal grudge against the appellant. The main allegation which the appellant made in respect of the counteraffidavit filed by Mr. Nanda was that the counsel for the Board, that is, Mr. P. S. Jain, and the Secretary of the Board had colluded to the detriment of the Board in submitting the counter-affidavit. The Deputy Advocate General in his counter affidavit has quoted a portion of the counter-affidavit prepared by the appellant in that writ petition which undoubtedly shows the appellant's poor knowledge of law. The Deputy Advocate General seems to have felt that the appellant was unnecessarily running to Mr. G. L. Nanda and without rhyme or reason criticising the counter-affidavit and making allegations against Mr. P. S. Jain, counsel for the Board and the Secretary if the Board and that he was acting beyond the scope of his activities as a Legal Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and was over-reaching the Deputy Commissioner.;