AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant is aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of respondent No. 1.
The writ petition was against order dated 5.4.1996, reverting her from the post of Assistant to the post of Storekeeper.
The respondent was appointed as Storekeeper w.e.f. 13.2.1981. On her application, vide order dated 10.7.1985, she was transferred and appointed as Assistant. She continued to work on that post and was also included in the seniority list for the Assistants. A writ petition was filed in the year 1994 being C.W.P. No. 2608 of 1994 by some of the employees, objecting to the grant of seniority to the respondent above them, on which this Court directed that the issue of seniority be re-determined, vide order dated 23.5.1995. Purporting to act in compliance of the said order, impugned order dated 5.4.1996 was passed. The respondent, inter-alia, submitted that she had already worked for 11 years on the post of Assistant and even if she was not given seniority, she could not be removed from the post on which she was working.
The writ petition was contested by the appellant by submitting that the order transferring her to the post of Assistant was void ab initio as her original post was as Storekeeper and there was no provision for appointment by way of transfer.
Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the respondent and held that appointment by transfer was not void ab initio as the qualification for the two posts was the same and the pay scale was also the same. The statement on behalf of the respondent, as noted in the impugned order, is as under:
Learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has limited his claim only to validation of her appointment as Assistant and is not claiming that the petitioner should be granted seniority w.e.f. 13.02.1981....
Accordingly, learned Single Judge held that invalidation of appointment of the respondent could not be sustained. Appointment of the respondent w.e.f. 10.7.1985 was, thus, declared to be valid.
We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that appointment of the respondent being void ab initio, the same could be set aside at any time and the impugned order was passed in view of direction of this Court, requiring the appellant to re-decide the matter of seniority after hearing the parties.
We do not find any merit in the submission. The appellant gave appointment to the respondent as Assistant in the year 1985 and the respondent was working on the said post since then. Merely because this Court required the appellant to re-decide seniority, was not enough to pass an order un-settling the appointment of a person who has already been working for 15 years, without her fault. The rules could not be read as empowering the appellant to unsettle the appointment made 15 years back. The earlier writ petition itself was nine years after appointment of respondent No. 1 which fact should also have been considered by the appellant while passing the order of reversion. Contention that pay of respondent No. 1 was not affected carried no weight in support of an order disturbing appointment long ago.
We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is dismissed.