Jain, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was promoted by the Collector, Bhilwara, on 18th September, 1975 as an officiating senior clerk on the basis of merit. THE Collector issued another order on 30th November, 1977, by which the earlier order of promotion of the petitioner was revoked. An appeal was filed in the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed on 18th April, 1978. Hence, this writ petition.
(2.) IT appears that in the relevant rules there was no provision for promotion of a lower division clerk as an upper division clerk on the basis of merit. The rules simply provided for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum merit. Representations were filed against the promotion of the petitioner and a member of the Board of Revenue while inspecting the office the Collector on 24th April, 1977, also noticed that the promotion was irregular. The petitioner came to know of these representations and he also filed a representation on 17th October 1977 which were considered and it was thereafter that he was demoted as an L. D. C The Tribunal called the relevant file from the office of the Collector and found that no proper committee as envisaged in the rules for promotions was formed, The file also contained a noting that the promotion was being made on an urgent and temporary basis which meant but ad hoc promotion. That gave no right to the petitioner. The Tribunal therefore rejected the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged there was no power in the Collector to review the earlier appointment. Even if there was any case made out for review, then that could be done only by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Tribunal was not justified in looking into the file of the department and base its decision upon the notings contained in the file. The Tribunal should have decided the matter on the basis of the orders of promotion and demotion The demotion order was bad in law as it was made without notice to the petitioner. I have considered over these submissions. The Tribunal being an appellate authority was perfectly justified in examining the concerned record in order to determine the nature of the appointment. It was noticed that no proper Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted and the promotions were only made on temporary basis. As held by me in Dr. P. S. Gehlot vs. State of Rajasthan: (1)1977 WLN (UC) 384, the Government has got powers to rectify its mistakes and it is not a case of review or revision in the sense it is understood within the meaning of C. P. C. The very initial order of promotion was illegal and therefore, the petitioner cannot complain of his revision. As I observed in the aforesaid, case, the Government in such cases is not required to act judicially or quasi judicially but is required only to act justly and fairly and cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. That means that only rudiments of natural justice for a limited purpose in exercise of its functions that are not analytically judicial but administrative, are required to be observed. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied or what its contents should be in a given case, must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of each case, the frame work of the law, and the constitution and nature of the duties of the Tribunal or the authority appointed to take a decision. The petitioner had notice and himself had filed representations apprehending his reversion which was duly considered. Therefore, on complaint of the violation of the principles of natural justice which are not any hard boiled rules can be made, in this case. As I further said in Nemichand vs. State of Rsjasthan: (2) 1977 WLN. 513, the rules of natural justice can not be stretched too far Only too often, the people who have done wrong, seek, to invoke the rules of natural justice so as to avoid the consequences. The learned counsel cited. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education U P. vs. Kumari Chittra Srivastava (3) in order to urge that it is the duty of the authority to give notice which was not dispensed with by the voluntary representation made by the petitioner. But that was a case of punitive action and has no application where the petitioner has no right to stay on the promotion which he got against the rules Reliance was next placed on Shyam Behari Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan (4) That was a case of termination of services and cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner. Even there, it was held that a bonafide and apparent mistake can always be allowed to be corrected. The initial order of the petitioner was in violation of the rules. It was revoked after representation and counter representation were considered. The tribunal was satisfied that the petitioner had acquired no right on account of the promotion obtained by him in the aforesaid manner. I find no error of law or of jurisdiction in the impugned order of the learned Tribunal and this writ petition is dismissed summarily.;