- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. By means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs : "i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Annexures No. 2, 5 and 6 of the writ petition treat ing the petitioner in continuous in service of the opposite parties on the post of Works Supervisor and regularised him on the very post of Works Supervisor as mentioned in Annexure no. 1 and pay the entire amount of difference on the aforesaid post alongwith 18% interest and con sequential service benefits of sen iority etc. ; ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Prohibition de claring that the Vice-Chairman and his accompanying members have no legal and valid title in the office of LJ. R Public Services Tribunal and the order passed by the Tribunal is ab-initio void and non-est and the same be quashed;. iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto to prevent the Vice-Chairman-Sri B. B. Agarwalfrom holding the post of Chairman without any authority; iv) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case; v) to allow the writ petition with costs. "
(2.) BRIEF facts for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was ap pointed on 01-08-1972 as Works Agent in P. W. D. in a clear vacancy. Thereaf ter, on formation of Bridge Corporation on 01-03- 1973, the petitioner was di rected to perform the duties as Works Agent in the said Corporation. Subse quently, he was promoted as Works Su pervisor on 01-08-1977 by the P. W. D. , the parent department. Thereafter, a proposal was fop. Warded for creation of the post of Works Supervisor on 13- 09-1982. The respondent No. 2, Superin tending Engineer, Saharanpur regularized the services of the petitioner as Works Agent w. e. f. 12-12-1984. It was further pleaded that the petitioner has been continuously performing the duties as Works Supervisor since 01-08-1977 and he has been getting the salary for the same post. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 06-08-1986 refixed his pay as Works Agent and a recovery of Rs. 1,021. 10 was issued against the peti tioner. The petitioner has further pleaded that he has been promoted on the post of Works Supervisor and his regularization on the post of Works Agents was illegal. The reversion of the petitioner from the post of Supervisor to Works Agent was against the principle of natural justice and the petitioner was given no opportunity of hearing while reverting him from the post of Works Supervisor to the post of Works Agent. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had been working as Works Supervisor since 1977. The post of Works Agent and Works Supervisor were created on 11-01-1983 on the recommendation of the Senior Engineer for the appointment of the petitioner as Works Supervisor. He should have been regularized as Works Supervisor instead of Works Agent. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal to quash the order dated 18-01 -1985,06-08-1984 and 28-08-1986 by which the petitioner was regularized as Works Agent and fur ther the recovery of the amount which was wrongly fixed by the department. The Tribunal after hearing the parties partly allowed the petition and the or der dated 28- 08-1986 was quashed by which recovery of Rs. 1,021. 10 was or dered by the department. The Tribunal further directed that the amount which has already been recovered from the petitioner may be refunded to him. The respondents were further directed that the said amount can only be deducted after giving the petitioner due opportu nity of hearing. For the rest of the claims, the Tribunal has not granted any relief. Feeling aggrieved by the said or der, the petitioner has preferred this pe tition. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit before this court in which it was pleaded that the petitioner was employed as Works Charge Em ployee purely on the temporary basis w. e. f. 01-08-1972 for a limited period and thereafter his term was extended from time to time. The petitioner was never promoted to the post of Works Supervisor and he was appointed as regular Works Agent on 12-12-1984 and his services were regularized as such. He was appointed as Works Supervisor vide order dated 18- 01-1985. It was further pleaded that the petitioner applied for the post of Works Supervisor during the work charge employee but his request was not acceded and he was not pro moted to the post of Works Supervisor. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had joined as Works Charge Employee in the Office of the respondents. The petitioner had been working in the post of Works Su pervisor since 1977 and the post of Works Supervisor was sanctioned by the Chief Engineer in the year 1983 and he was eligible to be regularized to the post of Works Supervisor in the year 1983. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring the docu ments submitted by the petitioner alongwith Claim Petition and the Tribu nal further erred in disallowing the main prayer of the petitioner. It was further contended that Senior Engineer of the department sent a proposal forwarding the name of the petitioner for sanction of the post of Works Supervisor on 13-09-1982 and the said proposal was ac cepted and a post of Works Supervisor and a post of Works Agent was sanc tioned vide letter dated 11-01-1983. The petitioner should have been regularized on the post of Works Supervisor instead of Works Agent from the date he was promoted as Works Supervisor. It was further contended that regularization on the post of Works Agent amounts his reversion from the post of Works Super visor to Works Agent. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder contended that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of the Works Supervisor. He was temporary appointed as Works Charge Employee on daily wages and after re ceiving the letter of the Chief Engineer sanctioning the post of Works Supervi sor and Works Agent, the petitioner was regularized on the post of Works Agent w. e. f. 12-12-1984 vide order dated 18-01-1985. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was appointed as Works Charge Employee in the office of the respondents on daily wages basis. It is also admitted to the parties that the post of Works Supervisor is a promo tional post and the feeding cadre for the post of Works Supervisor is the Works Agent. Shri P. C. Jhingan, learned coun sel for the petitioner could not demon strate us that the petitioner was ever promoted by a valid promotion order from the post of Works Agent to the post of Works Supervisor and he was ever regularized by any of the post which he was holding before he was regularized on 18-01-lf85 as Works Agent. It is also admitted to the parties that the petitioner was never regularized as Works Agent before the order of regularization of the petitioner on the post of Works Agent was passed on 18-01-1985. The peti tioner was never holding any regular post as Works Agent before his regularization as such and if he was never regularized as Works Agent he was not entitled to be promoted on the regular post of Works Supervisor and he cannot claim that directly he should be regularized on the post of the Works Supervisor.;