- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. Mr. A. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, as sails the impugned orders dated 29-8-1997 contained in Annexures-7 and 8 respec tively to the Writ Petition, by which the petitioners were sought to be reverted from the post of Revenue Inspector to the post of Lekhpal.
(2.) THE impugned orders of reversion are being challenged by the learned Coun sel on the ground, firstly that before issu ing the order of reversion, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners; secondly, the petitioners having been al lowed to work for more than four years on the promotional post, the petitioners could not be reverted at all even if the appointment was illegal and thirdly, that the order of promotion does not indicate that the promotion was on ad hoc basis or by way of a local arrangement, therefore, reversion on the ground that promotion was made by way of a local arrangement, cannot be sustained. Relying on various decisions which shall be referred to later on at the ap propriate stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners by reason of their long period of work as Revenue Inspector, have acquired a right to continue on the said post and as such the orders impugned reverting them to the post of Lekhpal should be quashed. Mr. D. R. Choudhery, learned Ad ditional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners having been appointed by way of local ar rangement, they have not acquired any right to continue on the promotional post since their lien was confined to the post of Lekhpal, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of reversion. He also relies on certain decisions for the sake of support ing his contention.
(3.) MR. Choudhery secondly contends that for appointment to the post of Revenue Inspector, qualification of train ing is necessary, which the petitioner do not possess and therefore no such promo tion could be made. It is further submitted that by virtue of their promotion which is wholly contrary to the rules, the petitioners cannot acquire any right to continue on the said promotional post. It is next submitted that by virtue of Rule 6 of U. P. Subordinate (Revenue Service Super visor Kanoongo) Service Rules, 1977 (herein-after referred to as the Rules), the promotion in question is non-est and there is no necessity of affording any kind of opportunity of hearing before reversion. The orders of promotion which are Annexures 1 and 5 respectively to the Writ Petition, do not indicate that the said promotion was either made on ad hoc basis or by way of local arrangement. It simply grants promotion to the petitioners to the post of Revenue Inspector. The petitioners were also transferred from one place to another as Revenue Inspector and the order of transfer is contained in An- nexure-4. According to him, the transfer was not by way of local arrangement. From the order dated 27th August, 1997 (An-nexure-6), it appears that as many as 11 persons who were promoted as Revenue Inspector, were reverted to the post of Lekhpal on the ground of promotion having been made by way of local arrange ment of untrained persons as well as their lien continuing on the said post of Lekhpal. The said order dated 27th August, 1997 (Annexure-6) was passed on the basis of an order dated 22-8- 1997 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun and in terms thereof the same was given effect to by the impugned orders con tained in Annexures 7 and 8 respectively to the Writ Petition. Thus, it appears that the principal order is the order dated 22rid August, 1997 which however has not been challenged in the present petition. The order dated 27th August, 1997 and order dated 29th August, 1997 contained in An nexures 6, 7 and 8 have been challenged. However, it would be too technical a point which I am not inclined to give much im portance to.;