Prakash Chander vs Union of India

Madan B. Lokur, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16th July, 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1763/1992. The Petitioner had cleared his Uch Madhyamik Examination from the Board of Adult Education and Training in 1984. On the basis of this educational qualification, he was eligible to be considered and was actually promoted as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 31st July, 1986 while he was already working as a regular peon.

Much later, on the basis of an Office Memorandum dated 18th August, 1989 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the Petitioner was reverted to his regular post of peon on 22nd June, 1992 on the ground that he did not possess the educational qualification being a Matriculate.

The sum and substance of the Office Memorandum is that the Government did not recognize the Uch Madhyamik Examination of the Board of Adult Education and Training for any purpose whatsoever. Consequently, the view taken by the Respondent was that the Petitioner did not possess the educational qualification to hold the post of LDC.

The Petitioner challenged his reversion by filing an Original Application but that was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order and that is how the Petitioner is now before us.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to a large number of similar cases decided by the Tribunal by an order dated 22nd February, 1991. The Tribunal in those cases noted that persons possessing the same educational qualification are already working in other Government departments. The Tribunal held that it would be unfair and inequitable to revert the applicants before the Tribunal after they have put in several years in the position of LDC, on the basis of the Office Memorandum. It was noted that the Office Memorandum does not say that the Uch Madhyamik Examination is not equivalent to a Matriculation Examination and since the applicants possessed an educational qualification equivalent to a Matriculation though not recognized by the Central Government, they could not be reverted from the post of LDC.

It appears that the decision rendered by the Tribunal on 22nd February, 1991 was accepted by the Respondents.

When the Petitioner''s case came up for consideration before the Tribunal, reference was made to the similar matters but unfortunately the Tribunal did not deal with any of those decisions.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Petitioner, having put in six years of service as LDC without any objection from the Respondents, it would now be equitable to now revert him from the post of LDC. It may be noted that when the Petitioner was appointed in 1986, the Respondents recognized the Uch Madhyamik Examination as being equivalent to a Matriculation Examination and it is only when the Office Memorandum dated 18th August, 1989 was issued by the Respondents that they de-recognized that educational qualification. We are of the opinion that the Office Memorandum dated 18th August, 1989 could not have retrospective effect to the detriment of the career prospects of the Petitioner. The de-recognition can only apply prospectively.

Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the other cases which were decided by the Tribunal on 22nd February, 1991 are distinguishable because in those cases the applicants had been appointed as LDCs on a regular basis. While that may be so, the decision of the Tribunal did not proceed on the basis of their reversion being illegal and contrary to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India but proceeded only on the basis of the interpretation of the Office Memorandum dated 18th August, 1989. In any event, we are of the view that the reasoning given by the Tribunal in coming to the rescue of the applicants in the connected matters would apply with equal force in so far as the Petitioner is concerned since the Petitioner has been working in the post of LDC for as long as six years.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Respondents that the Petitioner was only an ad-hoc employee and, therefore, had no right to the post of LDC. In principle, there is nothing wrong with the proposition canvassed by learned counsel for the Respondents but unfortunately his reversion is not based on this fact but is based on the Office Memorandum dated 18th August, 1989. As we have already noted, the Office Memorandum came into existence much after the Petitioner was promoted as an LDC. The Office Memorandum cannot take away the claim of the Petitioner to the post of LDC particularly when the educational qualification that he possessed was recognized by the Respondents as being equivalent to a Matriculation Examination which made him eligible to be appointed to the post of LDC.

Under the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 16th July, 1997 with the result that the reversion of the Petitioner to the post of peon from LDC is also set aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.