AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Harkauli, J.
I have heard learned counsel for both sides.
The petitioner was holding the basic post of ''tracer'' (ANUREKHAK). In the year 1984, according to the petitioner a seniority list of regional level was prepared in respect of the ''tracers'' in which the petitioner was senior and accordingly by way of stop gap arrangement, the petitioner was given ad hoc promotion to the post of ''draftsman''. It does not appear that there has been any complaint against the performance of the petitioner during past 17 years. However, by impugned order dated 20.7.2001 (Annexure 1 to this writ petition), the petitioner has been reverted back to his original post on the ground that his promotion was not in accordance with law. Two reasons are mentioned for this decision.
The first reason is that the post of ''draftsman'' is not to be filled up by promotion from amongst the tracers. In support of this, the counter affidavit states that rules of service are under preparation therefore on this ground after proper working of 17 years the petitioner will not be disturbed and will not be reverted till such time as rules are drafted and approved by the competent authority and regularly selected candidates in accordance with law become available on occupying their posts of ''draftsman''.
The second reason given in the order is that there are other tracers senior to the petitioner available in the department. It has been alleged by the petitioner that at the time of promotion by way of stop gap arrangement, the regional level seniority list was prepared in which petitioner was senior most, therefore again after 17 years of proper working, I am of the opinion that it would be unfair to permit this bigger seniority list to become a ground for reverting the petitioner. Particularly, when the rules as stated are under preparation and their preparation and approval and consequential selection of regularly selected candidates should not take much time. Therefore, I am of the opinion that for such a short duration it will not be in the interest of the respondents and it would be unfair to the petitioner who has devoted the best part of his life, to be reverted from the promotional post. It is made clear that after the rules are prepared and direct recruits are available, the petitioner will go back on his original post of ''tracer''.
In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed as above.
(Petition allowed)