Allowed

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jan 2012CWP/2613/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of two common writ petitions filed by government employees against their reversion from promoted posts. The court held that the reversion orders violated principles of natural justice and were unsustainable based on unamended draft rules. The challenged orders were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were allowed and the impugned reversion orders dated 5.02.2010 were quashed.

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

CWP No. 2613 of 2010 Date of decision:25.01.2012

Baldev Singh

....Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Punjab and others.

...Respondents.

CWP No. 3134 of 2010

Date of decision: February 25, 2012.

Mohinder Singh

Petitioner

Versus

The state of Punjab and others.

¶15

Respondents.

¶16

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. ***

¶18

Present Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in both the petitions.

¶19

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

¶20

¶21

SURYA KANT, J (ORAL)

¶22

This order shall dispose of CWP No. 2613 of 2010 and 3134 of 2010 as common issues were involved in these petitions. The facts are being extracted from CWP No. 2613 of 2010.

¶23

The petitioner joined the department as a Tracer and was later on promoted as Assistant Draftsman. He was further promoted to the post of Head Draftsman vide order dated November 22, 2005 (Annexure P- 3) and as per terms and condition No.3 thereof, the

¶24

-2-

¶25

petitioner was kept on probation for a period of one year. It was also stipulated that promotion of the petitioner was subject to the decision to be taken by the Personnel Department, Government of Punjab.

¶26

The petitioner admittedly continued on the above said promotional post and his the probation period was never extended. The petitioner, however, has been ordered to be reverted vide the impugned order dated 5.02.2010 (Annexure P-4) on the plea that the State Government has taken a view that the departmental examination passed by him is not equivalent to ITI Diploma in the Civil Draftsmanship.

¶27

The respondents have filed the reply-affidavit stating that the petitioner had given an undertaking that he may be promoted conditionally and the final decision to be taken by the Government shall be acceptable to him. Reference is also made to the order dated November 17, 2009 (Annexure R-2), whereby the State Government approved qualification(s) for different posts including the Divisional Head Draftsman, further recommending that Rule 7 of 1965 Rules of Punjab Public Department (Building & Roads Branch) could be amended.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at some length, I am of the considered view that the writ petition must succeed. I say so for the reasons that firstly- no opportunity of hearing was admittedly afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned reversion order dated 5.2.2010. The petitioner held the promotional post for almost five years and he could not be visited with an adverse order having civil consequences without observing the principle of natural justice; secondly- the petitioner was kept on probation for a period of one year without any stipulation that his probation period could be extended. There is nothing in the written statement to suggest that the work and conduct of the petitioner was un-satisfactory during probation period or his probation period was ever extended. The petitioner having completed

¶29

-3-

¶30

the maximum probation period successfully could not have been reverted in the manner adopted by the respondents. Thirdly, the undertaking given by the petitioner in writing was conditional in nature (Annexure R- 1) as he specifically alleged discrimination therein. The aforesaid plea taken by him has not been controverted or disputed by the respondents. Fourthly, the memo dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure R-2) merely recommends changes in qualification by amending Rule 7 of the 1965 Rules. No such amendment in the statutory rules has been un-disputably carried out so far. No reliance thus can be placed upon the above-stated letter which at the best amounts to 'draft rules'. Fifthly, condition No.2 of the promotion order dated 22.11.2005 can not be invoked for the reason that all the terms and conditions need to be read together for a reconciliatory understanding. If conditions No. 2 and 3 are read together, it is understandable that the department was required to take an appropriate within a period of one year, namely, during the probation period and not beyond that.

¶31

For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of revision dated 5.02.2010 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed.

¶32

January 25, 2012. Malik

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somvir Vs Vijendera Kumar, IAS and Anr.

Naraini Devi Vs Mukesh Chauhan

Bant Singh Vs Sanjiv Gupta

Gobind Motors Vs Harjeet Singh

Angrej Singh Vs Sanjeev Garg

Mewa Singh Vs G.V. Vajralingam & Ors.