M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) The petitioner's case is that they were appointed as Lekhpals on 14-7-1959 and 9-9-1960 respectively. Thereafter they were promoted on officiating basis as Consolidators on 4-12-1970. They joined their duties as Consolidators on 8-1-1971.
(2.) The petitioners' trouble has started from July, 1950. On 28-6-1975 the petitioners were reverted as Lakhpals and in pursuance of the said order, the order dated 13-7-1975 came to be issued. In fact the basis of their reversion was that they were)promoted after 27-11-1970. It may be mentioned that all the Lekhpals, who were promoted till 27-11-1970 were to be retained and anybody appointed after that date was reverted. Against the order of reversion the petitioners seem to have filed a writ petition in the High Court. During the pendency of that writ petition, the U. P. Public Services Tribunals Act of 1976 came into force. Pending petition before the High Court in respect of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the said Act abated and the petitioners filed a fresh petition before the Tribunals, which was constituted in the meantime. The Tribunal dismissed the fresh petition of the petitioners on 28-2-1979. The petitioners challenge this order also. In this manner the petitioners challenge three orders dated 28-6-1975, 13-7-1975 and 28-2-1979.
(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that their juniors were retained and they were reverted, which is violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners submit that as Lekhpal, they were senior to respondents No. 5 to 11, inasmuch as the petitioners date of appointment is prior to that of respondents No. 5 to 11 and on the basis of their appointment they would be senior to respondents No. 5 to 11 as Lekhpal. The respondents No. 5 to 11 were also appointed initially on officiating basis and thereafter the ^petitioners were also promoted officiating basis as Consolidators. The petitioners being senior in substantive grade i.e., Lekhpal to respondents No. 5 to 11 could not be reverted. The principle of reversion in this case should have been that seniors in the substantive grade would be retained and juniors to the petitioners in the substantive grade would be reverted, if at all reversion was necessary. It is the case of the petitioners that the department had prepared a gradation list of consolidators and the petitioners were shown senior to respondents No. 5 to 11 in 1973. The respondent No. 2, therefore, has committed a serious legal error by dismissing the petition of the petitioners and by holding them as juniors to respondents No. 5 to II. The tribunal has refused to interfere with the revision of the petitioners, which reversion order is also challenged in the writ petition.;