CHANDRA PRAKASH KHANTWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 26.7.1986 and order dated 2.8.1986 issued by the respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively, by which the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 2.1.1986 on the post of Assistant Engineer has been withdrawn, are subject-matter of dispute and challenged in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as C-Class Water Works Engineer by order dated 3.3.1977 issued by the General Manager, Garhwal Jalsansthan, District Dehradun. It has been alleged that the posts of Assistant Engineer were lying vacant and the opposite party No. 3 by order dated 20.12.1985 approved the petitioner's appointment for the post of Assistant Engineer and directed the Executive Engineer opposite party No. 4 to issue posting and promotion orders. The opposite party No. 4 issued the order of promotion in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 2.1.1986 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner Joined on 3.1.1986. The promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer was purely temporary and on officiating basis, considering the exigency of work and the same was liable to be terminated on appointment of regular candidates. The petitioner has claimed that in view of the provisions of U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 and the Rules creating the centralised services known as Centralised Services Rules enforced with effect from 18.6.1986, the petitioner who was functioning on the post of Assistant Engineer was liable to be absorbed provisionally and would thereafter be absorbed on the said post by 31.12.1986 unless and until he was found unsuitable. The petitioner has performed his duties on the post of Assistant Engineer to the entire satisfaction but the appointment itself was revoked by order dated 2.8.1986 in view of the Circular Letter dated 26.7.1986, wherein it was provided that the Junior Engineers shall not be promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer and in exigency of work, the seniormost Junior Engineer may be made incharge to look after the work of the Assistant Engineer.

(3.) The petitioner has assailed the order of reversion as having been passed arbitrarily, without any administrative exigency and to deprive the petitioner of his claim of absorption on the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner has also alleged that the incumbents junior to him have been retained whereas the petitioner has been reverted in a discretionary manner.