“4. The Petitioner is a Direct Recruit. The Respondents have failed to point out any Statutory Provision or Rule enabling them to revert a Directly recruited Superintending Engineer, like the Petitioner. It is settled law that only a Promotee can be reverted as a Direct Recruit enters service directly to a appointed post. He is not part of the existing cadre. Yet, the petitioner has been reverted and from the record we find that it is not on account of his act of omission and commission but purely because the Committee was unable to scrutinize and verify his caste claim. The petitioner cannot be expected to comply with the terms and conditions of the Advertisement and forward the Caste Validity Certificate within three months because his Caste Claim has to be verified, scrutinized and then validated by the competent Committee. The Petitioner has no control over the proceedings of the said Committee and in terms of the statutory provisions it was not expected of him to approach the Committee directly but through the Employer. In such circumstances, when all this were brought to the notice of the Employer by the petitioner by letters dated 15th and 22nd May, 2012, we are of the opinion that the respondent no.1 has proceeded with undue haste in reverting the petitioner. The order reverting the petitioner from the service stands vitiated as the petitioner is not responsible for the delay in processing and verifying his Caste Claim. Therefore, even if the petitioner is stated to have been reverted and relieved with effect from 7th June, 2012 that would not be a ground to deny him the relief once we find that action of the first respondent is vitiated as above.”
