Amarendra Nath Varma, J. - (1.) The petitioner challenges an order passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, reverting the petitioner from the post of Drafts man to the post of a Tracer.
(2.) These are the undisputed facts. The petitioner was appointed as a tracer in the Irrigation Department on June 20, 1956. In 1957 the Superintending Engineer VI Circle, Irrigation Department, Lucknow authorised the Executive Engineer, Rae Bareli to hold an examination for the selection of candidates for the post of Draftsman against 7 vacancies. At the said examination the tracers and Assistant Draftsmen working in the department were also allowed to appear. The petitioner passed that examination and was given a letter of appointment promoting him to the post of Draftsman in pursuance of an office memorandum dated December 21, 1957 issued by the Superintending Engineer {vide Annexure 7). The office memorandum stated that the petitioner had been promoted as an officiating Draftsman and was posted at the Mariahu Branch, Construction Division, Jaunpur. The petitioner worked on that post as a Draftsman without any complaint till the year I960 when, as a result of reduction in the number of posts in the Division, he was reverted to his substantive post as a Tracer with effect from 10th October, 1960. In may 1964 a casual vacancy occurred as a result of the promotion of one Wahid Uddin Draftsman to the post of Computer in the leave vacancy of one Musahir Alam Computer against which the Executive Engineer appointed the petitioner or. promotion as a Draftsman with effect from May 16, 1.964. The petitioner continued to work as a Draftroen in pursuance of this order right from 1964 till the date of the impugned reversion. At this point it may be mentioned that in 1967 the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department issued a circular to all Superintending Engineers and Director in the Irrigation Department with regard to the promotion of Tracers/Assistant Draftmen to the post of Draftsmen in the scale of pay of Rs. 100 - 160. This circular stated that the Tracers/Assistant Draftsmen shall be eligible for promotion against 20% posts reserved in the cadre of Draftsmen only if they passed a suitability test prescribed by the Chief Engineer. It further stated that a syllabus for holding the said test had been drawn up an the same was also being sent along with that circular. The relevant portion of the syllabus around which the main controversy arising in this petition centres, reads as follows:- "Every tracer and Assistant Draftsman shall have to pass Departmental examination to be conducted from time to time by the examination body, before he can be deemed Sc for promotion to the next higher post draftsman grade III. A person who has already been promoted to the higher post and has put in less than one years of service on the promoted post on the date on enforcement of this examination shall also have to pass the prescribed examination or also he may be reverted." (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) It appears that in view of the fact that the petitioner had earlier already passer the prescribed departmental examination in the year 1.957 for promotion to the post of Draftsman and had also worked a draftsman pursuant to that promotion as well as the subsequent promotion granted to him against the leave vacancy caused by she promotion of Wahiduddm for more than one year, he did not think it necessary to appear at the examination prescribed by the Chief Engineer.. Consequently when the petitioner was asked to appear at the said examination he protested. However, when specific directions were issued the petitioner did agree to appear at the examination but unfortunately he did not receive any intimation about the dates of the examination. As a result he did not appear at the examination which was held on 2nd and 3rd January, 1970. From the assertions made in the counter affidavit it is apparent that the petitioners failure to appear at the said examination was the sole, basis for his reversion.;