SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged in this petition his order of reversion dated 6. 12. 1985 (Annex. 9) passed by the District Education Officer, respondent no. 2 reverting him from the post of Lower Division Clerk (L. D. C.) to the post of Class IV. .
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. Saluja vehemently submitted that the impugned order of reversion passed by the District Education Officer is not a speaking order in as much as that the District Education officer has not at all dealt-with the reply of the petitioner and without giving any reasons for not accepting the case of the petitioner, he has reverted the petitioner from the post of L. D. C. to Class IV post. Thus, the impugned order is not only mechanical but laconical, and therefore, required to be quashed. There is a lot of substance in the submission made by the learned counsel. District Education Officer has not at all dealt-with the submissions made by the petitioner in his reply and therefore, the impugned order passed by him suffers with the vice of non-application of mind and therefore, required to be quashed on this ground alone. Mr. Saluja has also rightly submitted that it was not proper for the District Education Officer to take up the matter in view after a peried of 3 years. He submitted that the petitioner was promoted on 11. 8. 1981 by the predecessor in the office of the District Education Officer. When he promoted the petitioner he was fully aware that the petitioner had no experience of 5 years but as 10% quota from the staff, was required to be filled in and except the petitioner one Kanhaiya Lal no-one else were available for being promoted to the post of L. D. G. from the Class IV post and therefore, the petitioner was promoted because he had requisite educational qualifications even though the had no experience for 5 years. Thereafter, the authority has asked for the relaxation of the conditions regarding experience in the case of the petitioner from its higher authority. It was not relaxed by the higher authority and therefore, the District Education Officer was compelled to give show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be reverted to the class IV post on the ground that when he was promoted, he had not experience of 5 years in the Class IV post. Subsequently, he reverted the petitioner only on that ground. That action of the authority is bad because the petitioner was not at fault when he was promoted and now the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on that very ground otherwise, there would be lot of lecert borning on the part of the petitioner. There is a lot of substance in the submission made by Mr. Saluja. It was not at all proper on the part of the higher authourity not to relaxe the condition regarding the experince of the case of the petitioner parti cularly when the petitioner had satisfactorily worked on the higher post of L. D. C. for nearly 4 years before the impugned order of reveersion came to be passed. The action of the higher autherity in not relaxing the experience in the case of the petitioner is in violation of the Article 14 of the constitiution of India and therre foare any further action of reversion taken in the matter is required to be quashed. Secondly, if authority at all wanted to take up the matter in review it could have taken up the matter in review in a reasonable time It not have waited for a period of 3 years. The delay of almost 3 years is a gross delay and therefore, on that ground also the impugned order is required to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is required to be allowed. Before, parting with the Judgment I may point out that the petitioner has been protected by this court by way of an interim order of this interim order was passed was back in 1985 and by virtue of that interim order the petitioner has continued to remain in service as L. D. C. for nearly 13 years from the year 1981 and therefore, also the petitioner cannot be now reverted and asked to work on the class IV post. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 6. 12. 1985 is quashed and set- aside. The petitioner is declared to be continued in service as no order of reversion will be passed and he is entitled for all consequential benefits. Rule is made absolute with costs. .;