- (1.) K. D. Shahi, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Madan Lal Gupta has challenged order dated 8-11-1979 purported to have been passed by the Zonal Manager (N) of the Food Corporation of India, New Delhi whereby the petitioner was reverted to his parent post of Assistant Grade I with imme diate effect and has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the im pugned order dated 8-11-1979, a copy whereof is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It was further prayed that the respondents be commanded to treat the petitioner in continuous service and to accord him all benefits and privileges of continuous ser vice.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade III (Ministerial) on 29lh December, 1967 in Food Corporation of India and was posted at the office of the District Manager, Amritsar (Punjab ). Thereafter, he was transferred to various places and was promoted as Assistant Grade I (Ministerial) and was posted at Kanpur. He was again promoted as Assistant Manager (General) by order dated 26th October, 1977, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The order of promotion shows that the petitioner was to complete one year proba tion from the date of joining and on comple tion of the probationary period of one year, he was to be deemed to be confirmed on the post of Assistant Manager (General ). The petitioner joined as Assistant Manager (General) on 9-11-1977 at Orai (Jhansi ). It is also apparent that the period of probation was extended for one year. By a telex message bearing the date 8th November, 1979 and time 11. 44 a. m. , the petitioner was informed that he stood reverted to his parent post of Assistant Grade I with immediate effect. He was fur ther informed that formal order would fol low. The telex message is reproduced in Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It is alleged in the petition that no order reverting the petitioner from the post of Assistant Manager (General) to the post of Assistant Grade I was served upon the petitioner till the date he filed the petition i. e. 21-11-1979. The petitioner, inter alia, alleged that no order of reversion was passed by the com petent authority. He had not been served with any such order and he would be deemed to have been confirmed on the post of Assis tant Manager (General ). Shri A. C. Gupta, Deputy Manager (Personnel) in the Food Corporation of India filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It was alleged by the respondents that every person regularly ap pointed to any post shall be required to be on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment. The appointing authority may in his discretion extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year. It was further alleged that since the petitioner failed to complete the period of probation satisfactorily, he was reverted from the post of Assistant Manager (General) during the period of probation. The reversion order is within the frame work of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971.
(3.) HEARD Shri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents at length and in detail on various dates. On 4-2-1997 when the arguments were heard, the Court was confronted with the question whether there is any order of reversion of the petitioner by the competent authority which Shri Anajni Kumar and Shri N. P. Singh both admitted is the Zonal Manager of the Food Corporation of India. By a separate order, learned counsel for the respondents was granted three weeks' time for producing the relevant record contain ing the order dated 8-11-1979 before the Court for its perusal. In pursuance of the order, Shri N. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents produced the record. Shri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. P. Singh, learned counsel representing the respon dents have thoroughly and minutely scanned and scrutinised the record produced in court with no avail. The Court also did not find any order passed by the Zonal Manager reverting the petitioner.;