SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The case in hand has a meandering history of facts. It suffices to state that the petitioner had applied for the post of Traffic Inspector under a common advertisement issued for the post of Traffic Inspector and Assistant Traffic Inspector. After selection the merit list was prepared separately for both the posts. The petitioner was initially placed in the merit list of Assistant Traffic Inspector at S.No.7 and was appointed on 02.03.1979 and was thereafter confirmed on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector on 07.11.1981. There was a common order of appointment of Traffic Inspector and Assistant Traffic Inspector. In the said list, one Banshidhar who was at S.No.24 in the merit list and one Vijay Singh who was not on the merit list, were later on appointed on 16.07.1980 on the post of Traffic Inspector denying the petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of Traffic Inspector.
(2.) When the petitioner submitted a representation, both Banshidhar and Vijay Singh were reverted, against which Banshidhar preferred a writ petition which was allowed on 27.08.1990 and he was restored on the post of Traffic Inspector. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 08.03.1990 claiming that he should also be appointed as Traffic Inspector, which was placed before the Service Selection Board, who in its meeting dated 04.09.1991 examined the same and found that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Traffic Inspector. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 05.09.1991 as Traffic Inspector with effect from 16.07.1980 i.e. from the date when Banshidhar and Vijay Singh were appointed.
(3.) It appears that vide order dated 01.02.1992, the petitioner was again reverted from the post of Traffic Inspector to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, against which the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 7929/1992, wherein an interim order was passed and ultimately the same was allowed vide order dated 17.02.1994 and his order of reversion dated 01.02.1992 was declared illegal and accordingly quashed directing that the respondents shall furnish copies of representation of other persons to the petitioner and will give him an opportunity of personal hearing. It was further directed that after hearing all the parties, a fresh decision be taken in the matter of appointment on the post of Traffic Inspector which remained vacant in the year 1980. The above exercise was directed to be completed within a period of two months. It was also directed that if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine, then he would also be entitled for further promotion and pay fixation and if it is found that he is not the rightful person, no recovery shall be made from his pay. On 05.12.1994, the Managing Director found the petitioner not eligible for appointment as Traffic Inspector but no reasons were given and he was allowed to continue on the said post till next meeting of Service Selection Board. On 20.04.1996 the petitioner was ultimately ordered to be reverted from the said post but no reference was given with regard to the earlier orders. The petitioner was not even given an opportunity of hearing, as directed by the Court earlier. On perusal of the order dated 20.04.1996, it is seen that the same was on basis of proceedings of meeting of Service Selection Board dated 19.04.1994.;