- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. Substantially a common question of law involved in all these four writ petitions and, therefore, the same are being taken up together, for disposal.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Brief facts of the three writ petitions, filed by Pradeep Kumar Jain as narrated in these petitions, are that on 30-5-1989, the said petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the Wool Grading Centre Muni-Ki-Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. He is Bachelor of Arts. Due to the illness of one Sri K. M. Petwal Store Supervisor in the Center, vide order dated 21-1-1994, Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Pauri, directed Sri Petwal to hand over his Charge to the petitioner, a Junior Clerk. Consequently, the petitioner started discharging functions of Store Supervisor w. e. f. 9-6-1994. Vide order dated 3-2-1997, Additional Director Animal Husbandry (Hills) absorbed the petitioner on the post of Store Supervisor on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. Thereafter, vide order dated 11-12-1997, services of the petitioner were regularized on said post. Though, the post of Store Supervisor was a promotional post to be filled from the persons holding posts of Marketing Inspector-cum-Auction Organizer and Graduate Assistants, but according to the petitioner, since, no qualified person was available, in the special circumstances, petitioner was appointed/regularized on said post. It is alleged by the petitioner, that administrative powers of Director were delegated vide Government Order dated 28-12-1982 to the Additional Director (Uttarakhand), as such the delegatee was competent to pass orders of confirmation/regularization in favour of the petitioner Alleging that successor Additional Director, illegally and arbitrarily, vide his order dated 2-7-1998, referring Director's order dated 27-5-1998 reverted the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk, on the ground that Dr. S. N. Arya, the then Additional Director was not competent to promote the petitioner, on the post of Store Supervisor. The petitioner has stated that after his promotion, not only his name figured in the seniority list but vide Government Order dated 16-8-2000, he was allowed to discharge functions of other equivalent post. Challenging the impugned reversion order it is alleged by the petitioner, that the same is illegal and arbitrary as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitione nor principles of natural justice were followed by the authorities concerned. In Writ Petition No. 503 (S/s) of 2001, order dated 2-7-1998, the order of reversion is challenged. In Writ Petition No. 770 (S/s) of 2001, order dated 25-2-2001, whereby order permitting the petitioner to discharge function as Incharge of Wool Grading Centre was withdrawn and order dated 21-2-2000, circulating final seniority list, are challenged. And, in Writ Petition No. 2002 (S/s) of 2005, order dated 9-9-2005, whereby respondent Suresh Chandra Bajpai, Marketing Inspector was promoted to the post of Deputy Director, is challenged. Petitioner Rishi Pal [petitioner in Writ Petition No. 508 (S/s) of 2003], an initially appointed Lab Assistant w. e. f. 25-6-1993, has challenged order dated 27-5-1998, passed by Director, Animal Husbandry, whereby all appointments/promotions made by Dr. S. N. Arya, Additional Director (Uttarakhand) after 1-11-1997, are cancelled (on the ground that same being violative of rules and orders ). It is alleged in this writ petition that promotion of this petitioner to the post of Graduate Assistant in the year 1997, is valid. It is also stated that considering excellent service record of the petitioner, he was further promoted to the post of Wool Analyst, in the year 1998. Cancellation or these orders is said to be illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. It is alleged that the Director, Animal Husbandry had no power to pass the impugned order. Challenging said order, as violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, it is alleged by the aforesaid petitioner that the authority has not applied its mind and it has been guided by conjectures and surmises in the matter.
(3.) THE writ petitions are contested by the State and the Director, Animal Husbandry and it has been stated in their counter-affidavit that though petitioner Sri Pradeep Kumar Jain was appointed as Junior Clerk in the year 1989, but promotion given to him to the post of Store Supervisor, by Dr. S. N. Arya, the then Additional Director (Uttarakhand) is illegal, as the same is in violation of rules and powers. It is further stated that the said petitioner was neither qualified for the post of Store Supervisor nor was he selected through the Commission. THE said petitioner, in fact continued to discharge functions of Store Supervisor under interim orders of this Court. As against this, respondent Suresh Chandra Bajpai, a directly recruited official, selected by the competent Commission, in his supplementary counter-affidavit [filed in Writ Petition No. 503 (S/s) of 2001] has stated that the promotion of the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Jain was made in violation of U. P. Animal Husbandry Marketing Service Rules, 1993. THE impugned order was passed after enquiry in to the irregular/illegal appointments and promotions made by Dr. Arya, the then Additional Director. THE said officer was given charge-sheet for his misconduct and after enquiry he was found guilty of the charge. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in Writ Petition No. 508 (S/s) of 2003, it is stated that the post of Graduate Assistant could not have been filled under the rules excepted by direct recruitment. The petitioner Rishi Pal does not even fulfill the prescribed qualification for the said post. Defending order of reversion passed against the petitioner, it is stated that Director, Animal Husbandry being Head of Department has all powers to rectify the mistakes committed by the Additional Director.;