Rajesh Balia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant have challenged the order passed by learned Single Judge setting aside the order of reversion of respondent No. 1 Rikeshwar Joshi from the post of Conservator of Forest to Office Assistant by impugned order dated 19.4.86.
(2.) The facts revealed from the petition disclose that by order dated 28.9.84, four persons namely Damodarlal Pareek. Hari Kishan Sharma, L.T. Paruwani and Anandilal were promoted from the post of Office Assistant working at different places under the Forest Department to the post of Conservator of Forest. Shri Hari Kishan Sharma who was then posted at Jaipur was not inclined to accept promotion offered at Jodhpur. So also Shri Anandilal who was holding post of Office Assistant at Kota was not inclined to accept promotion post at Jodhpur. For filling the existing vacancies for which promotion exercise was being undertaken, on refusal to accept promotion by two of the persons who were senior in order and were found suitable for the post by same methodology in order of seniority, promotion was offered to the petitioner-respondent on his turn by order dated 22.11.84 while he was functioning as a Conservator of Forest, Jodhpur. Very important factor to be noticed is that promotion was foregone by persons then posted at Jaipur and Kota to avoid going to Jodhpur, where the promotion post existed. Harikishan was also one of such senior candidate who in order to avoid leaving Jaipur had declined to accept promotion.
(3.) The petitioner was ordered by order dated 19.4.86 to be reverted on the post of Office Assistant as a result of transfer of the post of office Assistant from Jaipur to Jodhpur. By the order of even date i.e. 19.4.86, Shri Hari Kishan Sharma, who had been promoted by order dated 10.3.86 again as Conservator of Forest at Jodhpur was transferred to Jaipur by amending the order of promotion. Thus, the chain of events goes to show that while Hari Kishan was ultimately able to achieve his object of having a promotion at the same place where he was serving namely Jaipur after foregoing the promotion offered at Joahpur in 1984 is operated adversely to petitioner Rikeshwar Joshi. The favour shown is evident from the fact that after making order of promotion on 10.3.86, at Jodhpur, the post itself was transferred to Jaipur. It may be noticed that petitioner was not reverted simultaneously with promotion of Hari Kishan Sharma with posting at Jodhpur, but his reversion came with transfer of post and accommodation of Hari Kishan Sharma against transferred post. Had it been the case of only available post, the order of reversion would have taken simultaneously. Two persons could not have been continued to be posted against same post. The petitioner had to pay the penalty for not shrinking to take higher responsibilities to make room for the persons who had shown total lack of devotion to duty by refusing to accept earlier promotion, just because posting on promotion was not at the place where he wanted. In a transferable posts such an attitude requires to be dealt with seriously rather than by rewarding at the dismay of junior officers.;