SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH HANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the Himachal Pradesh Government Transport with effect from Jan. 5, 1963. He was confirmed in that post with effect from Jan. 18, 1966. The final Seniority list of Superintendents, as it stood on April 1, 1967, showed the petitioner at serial number 3. By a memorandum dated Feb. 7/9, 1970 the General Manager, Himachal Pradesh Government Transport intimated that representations had been received from certain Superintendents against the final seniority list and the Department was advised that the promotions and appointments to the posts of Superintendents made on or after Jan. 5, 1963 were in violation of the Himachal Pradesh Government Transport Class III (Non-Gazetted) Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Rules, 1960 and the consequent confirmations were also erroneous. By the said memorandum the petitioner was given an opportunity of representing against the proposal to cancel the order confirming him On Feb. 10, 1970 the petitioner wrote to the General Manager requesting copies of the representations and the legal advice received, on the basis of which it was proposed to cancel his confirmation order. On Feb. 16, 1970 the General Manager passed an order stating that the documents requested by the petitioner wire not directly relevant to the question of cancelling his confirmation, and that after considering the case he cancelled the order confirming the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation on Feb. 25, 1970. The matter remained pending before the authorities for some time. The Departmental Promotion Committee met and recommended the confirmation of the petitioner in the post of Superintendent with effect from Jan. 5, 1964. Meanwhile, a Select List of officers belonging to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh and other Union Territories was prepared in Aug. 1970. It included the names of respondents Nos. 5 to 63. It did not include the petitioner because he had been deprived of the status as a "confirmed" Superintendent. It appears that the Select List was prepared by reference to the Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service Rules, 1965. Subsequently, on the enactment of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, Himachal Pradesh became a State. The DHANIC Service was reconstituted so that it no longer related to Himachal Pradesh. After the grant of Statehood the Governor of Himachal Pradesh Issued a series of notifications promoting a number of respondents to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service. It is said that this was done on the basis that the Select List prepared under the DHANICS Rules continued to be valid and operative.

(2.) The petitioner now files this writ petition.

(3.) The case of the peiitioner is that the order dated Feb. 16, 1970 made by the General Manager, Himachal Praresh Government Transport cancelling his confirmation in the post of Superintendent is invalid because he was deprived of a proper opportunity of showing cause against that order inasmuch as the material relevant for the purpose was denied him The petitioner; has sought no relief in the writ petition against that order. In the circumstances, the order stands and takes effect accordingly. Therefore, on the date when the Select List was drawn up, the petitioner's name could not have found a place in it. He can have no grievance on the ground that the select List does not include his name.