AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan, J.—The challenge to the order of reversion is on the ground that the petitioner could not be reverted except by a procedure to be adopted after notice in the manner contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. First of all such contention is fallacious for a person, who is employed with HUDA does not hold a civil post. Service in HUDA cannot be civil service in the manner contemplated by the said Article. Under the circumstances, reliance placed by the counsel in the judgment in Chander Parkash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. 2000 (2) SCR 772 relating to civil service cannot, therefore, be applied.
Further, it is seen from the order of appointment that he had been put on probation for a period of two years and the order of appointment specifically records the fact that he is liable for reversion during the said period. The order of reversion, which is made, is regulated by condition of service, which is brought through the appointment order and the petitioner cannot, therefore, have any grievance.
The writ petition is dismissed.