S.H.A. Raza and Bhagwan Din, JJ. - (1.) The petitioner, were initially appointed as Junior Engineers in the Mandi Parishad. One Dhirendra Singh was also appointed as Junior Engineer in the Mandi Parishad. He was promoted on 15.6.1991 on the post of Assistant Engineer in stop-gap arrangement and thereafter on 11.9.1997 he was promoted on the post of Deputy Director (Electrical Mechanical). The remaining petitioners who were Junior Engineers were promoted on stop-gap arrangement as Assistant Engineers on different dates in the year 1995 and 1996. Being aggrieved against their 'reversion' to the post of Junior Engineer, all the petitioners have preferred writ petitions before this Court.
(2.) The factual matrix as set out in these writ petitions is that In the meetings dated 2.8.1995 and 19.9.1995, the Mandi Parishad increased the strength of Assistant Engineers from 72 posts to 100 posts and increased the posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical Mechanical) from 11 to 30 posts. In pursuance of the said increased strength, the Director of Mandi Parishad passed orders of promoting the petitioners except Dhirendra Singh on the post of Assistant Engineer in the stop-gap arrangement. Mr. Dhirendra Singh was promoted on the post of Deputy Director (Electrical Mechanical). Thereafter, the Director of Mandi Parishad reverted all the petitioners on the post of Junior Engineer mainly on two grounds, firstly ; that the posts upon which the promotions were made, vacancies were not available and secondly ; that the promotions were made ignoring the seniority list.
(3.) The thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions are two fold, firstly, that the strength was increased by the Mandi Partshad itself, and hence the strength cannot be reduced by the Director by reverting the petitioners, and secondly, that the principle of audi alteram partem was not followed, inasmuch as, in pursuance of ad hoc promotions on the stopgap basis the petitioners joined the posts and were working on the promoted posts. The order of reversion has adversely affected their rights and hence without giving them an opportunity to show cause such an order could not have been passed.;