P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) This case has been called for the second time. No one appears for the appellant.
(2.) A perusal of the facts of this case would show that by an order dated 9.5.1983 penalty of reduction in rank from the post of Technical Assistant Grade II to Technical Assistant Grade III was imposed on the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged the said order of penalty. While the order was upheld, the following observations were made by the then Additional District Judge in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff : "Lastly it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned orders are illegal because under the regulations 1971 it must have been recorded as to for how much period the penalty of reduction in rank was awarded to the appellant but the period has not been mentioned and therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and should be set aside. In this respect, I would like to say that it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The punishing authority imposed penalty of reduction in rank from T.A. Grade IInd to T.A. Grade III alongwith recovery of Rs. 114-40 in lump sum upon the plaintiff with immediate effect. When period for which the plaintiff shall remain in the reduced rank has not been mentioned, it would be the natural consequence that he can be considered for further promotion in future by the competent authority as and when any vacancy in the department occurs and the impugned order dated 9.5.1983 can in no way considered to be a hindrance in the way of the appellant/plaintiff for further promotion in further times to come, in my considered opinion. Thus the impugned order can not be said to be bad on this ground." On the basis of these observations, the plaintiff filed the present suit claiming promotion from the post of Technical Assistant Grade III to Technical Assistant Grade II and also further promotion on that basis. The trial Court decreed the suit and directed the respondents to consider the plaintiff for promotion from the post of Technical Assistant Grade III to Technical Assistant Grade Ii on 2.8.1983 and also subsequent promotions thereafter. In appeal, the lower Appellate Court on reconsideration of the matter found that since an penalty had been imposed on the plaintiff, the trial Court not have directed consideration of promotion on particular date. The status of the plaintiff in the cadre of Technical Assistant Grade III and his service record has to be seen while giving subsequent promotion to him. Still further it was found that the plaintiff at best could have a right for consideration and not promotion itself. The decree of the trial Court was accordingly modified by the lower Appellate Court while observing as hereunder : "Not only this the lower court on one hand ordered that the plaintiff to be considered for promotion on 2.8.1983 and for subsequent promotions gave a finding that he was entitled for the subsequent promotion. It would be dependent on his record. The court could not have given directions for promoting the petitioners on a given date as it would violate the rights of other persons who were to be considered for promotion specially in the absence of those employees. The department should have left free to consider and decide after giving opportunity to all the eligible employees and after making an internal assessment of the available vacancies and the rules/regulations beyond that the Court could not undertake the exercise. Therefore, the finding recorded by the lower court that the plaintiff was entitled for promotion from 2.8.1983 could not have been given and the only relief that could have been (given to the plaintiff) was that "his case was to be considered." It is for the competent authority who was to see whether the plaintiff was competent and fit for promotion. No direction could be given that the plaintiff was entitled for promotion or 2.8.1983. Therefore, the findings recorded by the lower Court in this regard is set aside and the judgment has to be modified and the defendants are directed to undertake the exercise for consideration of the eligible person for promotion after undertaking an internal exercise as to how the plaintiff was to be placed in grade-III subsequent upon his reversion depending on what their rules and regulations say. Each organisation had its own set of rules and regulation. The regulation have not been placed on the record. It was, therefore, to be left to the department to take care and undertake the exercise. The judgment and decree passed by the lower court is, therefore to be modified and it is held that plaintiff's case was to be considered by the department. There was no justification for giving any further direction. With these directions the appeal is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared and the file be consigned to records. Appeal file be sent back."
(3.) Having gone through the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the direction given by the lower Appellate Court is totally legal and justified. It would be a contradiction in terms if the appellant is reverted from the post of Technical Assistant Grade II to Technical Assistant Grade III on 9.5.1983 as a result of a detailed departmental enquiry and by way of transfer and immediately thereafter a direction is given to promote him from 2.8.1983 itself. Necessarily the effect of the order of reversion on his seniority position on the post of Technical Assistant Grade III would have to be considered by the employer. Still further it has also to be considered as to whether his service record warranted promotion. It is for this reason that the lower Appellate Court has modified the judgment of the trial Court. I find no error in law in the directions carried out by the lower Appellate Court.;