G.S.Singhvi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The case set out by the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as work charge helper for 3 months in the services of the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as 'the corporation'). His service was extended from time to time and by order dated 1.8.88 he was given appointment as Helper in the regular pay scale. This appointment was given to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 34 of the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (Staff Regulations), 1974. This appointment was for a period of one year or till the availability of the candidates selected by due process.
(2.) On 6.7.90, the petitioner was informed that the post of Helper has been abolished and as per the Resolution passed by the Board of the respondent Corporation in its meeting held on 24th May, 1990, it was decided to offer appointment the petitioner as Junior Assistant. He was called upon to exercise option. The petitioner submitted an application in pursuance of the letter dated 6.7.90, and requested that he may be appointed as Junior Assistant and that he would give up the benefit of retrenchment compensation etc. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant by order dated 7.7.90 against the direct recruitment quota post. He joined the service on 9.7.90. Now by an order dated 19.1990/11.9.90 the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Godown Keeper. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 1.9.90/11.9.90 on the ground that there can be no reversion of a person who has been appointed against the direct recruitment quota post. The other ground of challenge is that the petitioner's appointment to the post of Junior Assistant was for a fixed period of one year and, therefore, before expiry of one year, the petitioner could not have been removed from service either by reversion or other,wise. The third ground of attack is that the reason given in the order of reversion, namely, non-joining of Senior Assistant, is no reason in the eye of law, because the Corporation ought to have undertaken exercise for making appointment to the post of Senior Assistant or higher posts from amongst the other eligible candidates.
(3.) In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have come out with the case that all 64 vacancies in the cadre of Jr. Assistants are already occupied by the persons who have been appointed on the post of Junior Assistants on regular basis and since the petitioner was junior most person, was rendered surplus on the grounds and circumstances which have been explained in the reply, therefore, he has been sent back to the post of Godown Keeper. According to the respondents, promotions had been made to the post of Junior Accountants from amongst the Senior Assistants. Some persons did not join on the post of Junior Accountants and therefore they had been adjusted as Senior Assistants. The consequential effect was on the posts of Senior Assistant and then Junior Assistants. Thus the post which was occupied by the petitioner became non-existent. Therefore, service of the petitioner had either to be terminated, he was to be adjusted on some other post. No post of Helper was available in the Corporation. However, taking a humanistic approach, the Corporation decided to adjust the petitioner against the post of Godown Keeper. This according to the respondents is perfectly justified. The respondents have stated that the petitioner does not have any legal right to continue on the post of Junior Assistant in view of the fact that the post is not available and he is one of the junior most Junior Assistant.;