J.M. Tandon, J. - (1.) Malkiat Singh petitioner was appointed Patwari in Consolidation Department on June 12. 1947, and was promoted as Sub-Inspector Consolidation with effect from June 13, 1950, and was confirmed as such with effect from May 19, 1956. On July 8, 1959, the petitioner was promoted as officiating Consolidation Kanungo but was reverted as Sub-Inspector Consolidation on Sept. 26, 1961. Thereafter, he was again promoted as officiating Kanungo on July 12, 1968, and he held this post till Sept. 9, 1971, on which date he was reverted vide order Annexure ' A'. The petitioner has challenged his reversion in the present writ petition being illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(2.) The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, In his written statement has averred that the petitioner was reverted on Sept. 9, 1971, as a result of general retrenchment in the Consolidation Department and no official junior to the petitioner was retained as Kanungo.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner having been appointed by the Director, Consolidation of Haldings, he could not be reverted by the Collector and further no notice was given to him before his reversion. The impugned order Is thus violative of Art. 311 of the Constitution. I see no force in this contention It Is clear from the return filed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, that the petitioner was reverted as a result of general retrenchment ': the Consolidation Department and not by way of penalty. The Collector was competent to revert the petitioner. In this situation, in spite of the fact that the petitioner might have been appointed by the Director, his reversion could be ordered by the Collector. The petitioner was also not entitled to notice before reversion as it was not ordered by way of penalty.;