J L MAIR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, J. L. Mair, joined as Sub-Divisional Officer in the Irrigation department of the Punjab Government at Nangal in March 1953. He was a temporary engineer. On September 8, 1960, the Punjab Government made certain promotions, including of temporary engineers and Sub-Divisional Officers, to officiate as Executive Engineers (Annexure 'n'), but the appellant was not among the promoted officers, and Note 1 to the order said that he has not been promoted as X. E. N. as he has not yet passed D. P. E. (Departmental Promotion examination ). The appellant pointed out that he had in fact passed the examination On November 25, 1960, he received a telegram, copy Annexure 'a', informing him that he was to join as Executive Engineer at Ambala in a leave vacancy, and subsequently on February 24, 1961. a notification copy Annexure A1, appointing him officiating Executive Engineer was duly issued. On February 3, 1962. he received a telegram, copy Annexure 'c' reverting him to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer He made various representations to the higher authorities but to no result. On March 15, 1965, he then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the legality and validity of the order of reversion on the grounds (a)that the order of reversion in his case has been reduction in rank resulting in punishment to him inasmuch as his status, seniority and position in the substantive rank have been reduced in consequence, and a large number of persons junior to him have not only been retained as Executive Engineers but, since his reduction, about one hundred persons junior to him have also been promoted as Executive Engineers, (b) that the order of reversion is thus in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution as the provisions of the same were not complied with when he was abruptly inverted. and (c) that he not having been informed of the grounds of reversion, the order is thus arbitrary and mala fide.

(2.) IN the return by the State of Punjab, it was staled that in 1960 the question of promotion of the appellant was considered and he was promoted for a period of six months in an officiating capacity as Executive Engineer provisionally in anticipation of the approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission, but the Commission did not approve his promotion on the basis of his record of service, so that he had to be reverted. It was also pointed out that the reports on his work and conduct for the years 1955 to 1958 and 1961 have been adverse to him. It was denied that his ceversion has been as a measure of punishment as he was reverted on account of unsuitability for promotion to the rank of officiating executive Engineer. It was also pointed out that he was considered for promotion to the rank of officiating Executive Engineer on each and every occasion when the officers junior to him were considered, but on the basis of his record of service both the Punjab Government and the Punjab Public Service Commission did not approve his case for promotion. Obviously the allegations about mala fide and making of the order arbitrarily were denied.

(3.) THE petition came for hearing before Narula J. , when reliance on the side of the appellant was placed on P. C. Wadhwa v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 423, that the promotion of the appellant as officiating Executive Engineer having been made by the Government in spite of adverse remarks in his annual reports, the same could not be made a ground for his reversion, but the learned Judge points out in his order that Wadhwa's case, AIR 1964 SC 423 is not parallel to the facts of the present case. The learned judge further points out that reversion, with juniors allowed to continue in a higher rank in an officiating capacity on the ground of unsuitability is not by way of punishment and carries with it no stigma attracting art. 311. The learned Judge has also pointed out that the reason given by the state Government in its return is reasonable as the Government is normally to follow the advice of the Public Service Commission. So, on December 22, 1965, the learned Judge dismissed the petition of the appellant. This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the order of the learned Judge.