HC sets aside order reverting employee to his earlier post before promotion, says Rules of natural justice call for due compliance

Read Order: Devender Kumar Bansal v. Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani and others 

LE Staff

Chandigarh, November 10, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has accepted  a Writ Petition against an order whereby the petitioner was directed to be reverted from the post of Senior System Executive to the post of Senior Computer Operator.

In this case, as per version of the petitioner, he was appointed as a Computer Operator on regular basis with the first respondent Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani in February, 1987, in the year 1989 he was promoted as Senior Computer Operator followed by other promotion as Senior System Executive on December 19,2016.

He had completed the probation period on December 19,2017 and the Board of Directors of Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani, which is the competent authority to modify the regulations had taken a decision that for promotion to the post of Senior System Executive.As per the petitioner, three years experience as System Executive/Senior Computer Operator was required instead of as System Executive because System Executive/Senior Computer Operator was the same post and such decision was duly approved by Additional Chief Secretary, School Education Department, Haryana.

The petitioner’s case was that although decision of Board of Directors, which was approved by Additional Chief Secretary, School Education Department, Haryana could not be upset by Director General, School Education, Haryana but even then on the basis of letter of Director General, School Education Department, Haryana, reversion order was passed by which the petitioner was ordered to be reverted from the post of Senior System Executive to the post of Senior Computer Operator.

From the petitioner’s side , it was brought to the notice of the Court that before passing of the order neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was afforded to him.

The respondents stated that despite the fact that the petitioner was not eligible for the promotion to the post of Senior System Executive, still he managed to get the promotion by  an order wherein it was clearly provided that the promotion was temporary and subject to the other conditions as per Board’s Rules and Regulations, as amended from time to time and as per the Service Regulations for appointment by promotion to the post of Senior System Executive, three years experience as System Executive was required.The petitioner had never worked as System Executive and was rather working as Senior Computer Operator, therefore, he was not eligible for the promotion to the post of Senior System Executive.

The Bench of Justice H.S.Madaan observed that according to the respondents, the petitioner had managed to get the promotion, in that way an accusing finger was being pointed towards the authorities, which had granted promotion to the petitioner. 

Such authorities are none-else but the officers of the respondents. If for a moment, it is taken that the petitioner was not having requisite qualifications and experience for the promoted job, then why was he granted promotion at the first instance. The officers concerned could not shut their eyes to the factual and legal position including requirement of minimum qualification while promoting the petitioner. Necessary approval had been granted by the Government also, noted the Court.

Now coming to the question, whether the petitioner could have been reverted to his feeder post in such a manner, the Bench opined that the answer would be in negative. Even if, the respondents felt that the promotion granted to the petitioner had not been so done legally and validly and it deserved to be withdrawn, then rules of natural justice required that at least an opportunity of being heard should have been afforded to the petitioner getting his version. Passing the reversion order in such a manner cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination.

The Bench went on to add that merely saying that petitioner had managed to get order with regard to his promotion did not shield the respondents from explaining as to why allegedly wrong promotion was granted to the petitioner. The officers and other authorities of respondents were not expected to be so ignorant, naïve and novice so as to pass an order granting promotion to the petitioner without due application of mind, unmindful of the requirement of the basic publication and without considering the pros and cons of their action. If that order was to be reversed, then at least an opportunity of being heard should have been provided to the petitioner. Acting in the manner in which the respondents have done cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination. 

Hence,while stating that the rules of natural justice and procedural rules cannot be given go by in such a light and casual manner, rather they call for due compliance, the Bench clarified that the respondents would be at liberty to serve a show-cause notice upon the petitioner as to why he should not be reverted to his earlier post before promotion, get his response thereto and then proceed to pass appropriate order in the matter in accordance with law.