Jai Parkash Gupta vs Board of School Education, Haryana at Bhiwani

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated September 11, 1992 by which he was reverted from the post of Assistant to that of a Clerk. The Petitioner complains that the order was passed without grant of any opportunity. It is, thus violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash this order.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Respondent. It has been interalia averred that the Petitioner has challenged the order after a lapse of almost eight years. It has been further pointed out that the Petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 10373 of 1998 to challenge the order of reversion which had been passed during that year. At that time, the Petitioner could have made a challenge to the order passed in the year 1992. He had not done so. On merits, it has been pointed out that the order was passed as the Petitioner''s performance during the period of probation was not found to be up to the mark.

Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. On behalf of the Respondent, the preliminary objection based on the plea of delay has been pressed.

Admittedly, the order of reversion was passed on September 11, 1992. The writ petition was presented in this Court on February 08, 2000. There is a delay of more than seven years. No explanation for this inordinately long delay has been given.

Mr. Dhingra submits that the Petitioner had filed an appeal in the year 1992. Copies of the two appeal petitions alleged to have been filed are Annexures P-11 and P-12. On this basis, the counsel submits that the plea of delay cannot be sustained.

Mr. Ram Kumar Malik, Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Board submits that no appeals had been received in the office of the Board.

Perusal of the written statement shows that a categorical plea that the appeals/representations, copies of which have been produced as Annexure P-11 to P-16 have never been filed. Even otherwise, nothing has been produced on record to conclusively establish that the appeals had been actually filed. It is true that the Petitioner has filed a replication. However, in the replication, no particular receipt number has been disclosed, which may prima facie show that any representation/appeal had been filed. In any case, even if appeal had been filed, the Petitioner could not have waited for seven years before filing this petition. In view of this position, the plea of delay as raised on behalf of the Respondents appear to be well-founded.

There is another aspect of the matter. It is the admitted position that after the passing of the impugned order of reversion on September 11, 1992, the Petitioner had been promoted as an Assistant in the year 1994. However, he was again reverted in the year 1998. The Petitioner had approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 10373 of 1998. If the Petitioner had any subsisting grievance against the order of reversion passed on September 11, 1992, he could have raised a plea in the petition. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the Petitioner had, in fact, raised such a plea. In this situation, even the principles of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC shall be attracted to the facts of the present case.

Besides the above, it also deserves notice that the Petitioner was on probation. The performance having not been found to be up to the mark, he was ordered to be reverted. Mr. Dhingra has pointed out that the Petitioner had gone through a very tragic phase in his personal life. It appears to be so. However, the order was passed in the year 1992. There is a long delay and keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner was merely on probation, we find no ground to interfere. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- J.S. Khehar, J.