- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This judgment will also dispose of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34824 of 1992-Bekaru Prasad v. State of U. P. , Writ Peti tion No. 34823 of 1992-Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of U. P. , Writ Petition No. 41531 of 1992-Hari Shanher Mishra v. U. P. S. R. T. C. , and Writ Petition No. 36326 of 1992-R. S. Tiwari v. U. P. S. R. T. C. , as there is common question of law and facts involved.
(2.) THE petitioners are employees of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. THEy are conductors/drivers. It appears that they ware given selection grade and later on the selection grade was cancelled by impugned order dated 18-8-1992 passed by the respondent No. 4. THE petitioners grievance is that the selection grade has been given by the Assistant Regional Manager and as such it could not be cancelled later on by the Regional Manager. THEy seek quashing of the impugned order and direction in the nature of mandamus to release the differences of the amount between the salary actually paid to the petitioners and the amount of salary in the selection grade to which they are entitled. THEir grievance is that they have not been heard before withdrawal of selection grade and the action of the authorities is arbitrary and unreasonable. The case of the respondents is that the Assistant Regional Manager was not competent to grant selection grade and only Regional Manager was competent to do so. The Regional Manager is appointing authority and as such no other functionary could grant the selection grade. It is further averred that the mistake was detected with respect to the grant of selection grade wrongly and it was rectified. The case was fixed for hearing. None appears to press this petition. I have gone through the record carefully and I am of the view that principle of natural juctice are not involved if a mistake is rectified by the competent authority. In fact the competent authority has corrected the wrong grant of selection grade. The selection grade is always granted on merit and good record of service. In the counter- affidavit the authori ties have replied that the service record of the petitioners was not good and as such they are not entitled for selection grade. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have been discriminated and the selection grade has been withheld arbitrarily.
(3.) RECENTLY the Supreme Court in JT 1996 (1) SC 70-ffaryana Warehousing Corporation v. Ram Avtar, held that decision taken not to allow the respondent to cross the efficiency bar, principle of natural justice do not apply. Whether any opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the respondent before an adverse decision is taken with regard to non-crossing of efficiency bar ? Held no. A decision not to allow the crossing of efficiency bar is required to be taken on the basis of record of the employee concerned. From the counter-affidavit I find that the Regional Manager has taken a decision that since record was not good of the petitioners and they were not fit to grant selection grade. It observed that before passing of speaking order, however, does not mean that before the authority concerned comes to the conclusion of stopping of a person at the efficiency bar stage, an opportunity of hearing must be given to him. Consideration of all material before taking the decision is sufficient compliance of the requirement. So in the circumstances, I am of the view that the competent authority has corrected the wrong grant of selection grade and correction is based on material as evident from the counter-affidavit. There is no infirmity in the decision of the Regional Manager of the impugned order/ orders and the writ petition is dismissed besides baing dismissed in default. Petition dismissed. .;