JUDGMENT S. C. Verma, J.
1. The order dated 26.7.1986 and order dated 2.8.1986 issued by the respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively, by which the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 2.1.1986 on the post of Assistant Engineer has been withdrawn, are subject-matter of dispute and challenged in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as C-Class Water Works Engineer by order dated 3.3.1977 issued by the General Manager, Garhwal Jalsansthan, District Dehradun. It has been alleged that the posts of Assistant Engineer were lying vacant and the opposite party No. 3 by order dated 20.12.1985 approved the petitioner's appointment for the post of Assistant Engineer and directed the Executive Engineer opposite party No. 4 to issue posting and promotion orders. The opposite party No. 4 issued the order of promotion in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 2.1.1986 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner Joined on 3.1.1986. The promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer was purely temporary and on officiating basis, considering the exigency of work and the same was liable to be terminated on appointment of regular candidates. The petitioner has claimed that in view of the provisions of U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 and the Rules creating the centralised services known as Centralised Services Rules enforced with effect from 18.6.1986, the petitioner who was functioning on the post of Assistant Engineer was liable to be absorbed provisionally and would thereafter be absorbed on the said post by 31.12.1986 unless and until he was found unsuitable. The petitioner has performed his duties on the post of Assistant Engineer to the entire satisfaction but the appointment itself was revoked by order dated 2.8.1986 in view of the Circular Letter dated 26.7.1986, wherein it was provided that the Junior Engineers shall not be promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer and in exigency of work, the seniormost Junior Engineer may be made incharge to look after the work of the Assistant Engineer.
3. The petitioner has assailed the order of reversion as having been passed arbitrarily, without any administrative exigency and to deprive the petitioner of his claim of absorption on the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner has also alleged that the incumbents junior to him have been retained whereas the petitioner has been reverted in a discretionary manner.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and it has been stated that the opposite party No. 3 had no authority to direct the opposite party No. 4 to promote and appoint a Jal Kal Abhiyanta on any vacant post of Assistant Engineer. The opposite party himself had no authority or jurisdiction to make any appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer which only vested with respondent No. 1. The petitioner had made an application dated 30.12.1985 to opposite party No. 4 requesting for an officiating appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer.
5. The appointment letter dated 2.1.1986 indicates that it was a stopgap arrangement for performance of certain duties on the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner who was holding the post of Jal Kal Abhiyanta C-Class was paid salary in the scale of Rs. 300-500 with special pay of Rs. 50 and he had also looked after the duties of Assistant Engineer but he did not receive pay in the higher scale of the Assistant Engineer of Rs. 850-1,720. The petitioner was basically holding the post of Jal Kal Abhiyanta and was also looking after the work of Assistant Engineer. In absence of any order from the opposite party No. 1 appointing the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer, the impugned order dated 2.8.1986 was passed by the Executive Engineer, the respondent No. 4 withdrawing the earlier order of appointment dated 2.1.1886,
6. The other allegations of the petitioner that the Juniors have been promoted has also been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner's name appears at Sl. No. 42 on page 3 (Kha) of the seniority list dated 30.9.1983, and the persons mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 of the list on page ka have been promoted and they were senior to the petitioner. No incumbent from page kha of the list has been promoted wherein the name of the petitioner also finds place. The petitioner has not named any Jal Kal Abhiyanta junior to him who has been promoted or who has been retained as Assistant Engineer, The impugned order has not been passed by way of punishment and in view of the orders dated 31.7.1986 appointing the Assistant Engineers, the impugned orders have been passed. The opposite party No. 1 in the counter-affidavit has also taken this stand and the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer has been dented. On the other hand, it has been alleged that he continued to be appointed on the post of Jal Kal Abhiyanta in the pay scale of Rs. 300-500 and was never paid salary of the pay scale of Assistant Engineer.
7. At the time when the writ petition was filed the petitioner was able to obtain an interim order dated 1.9.1986 wherein it was provided that the operation of the impugned orders shall remain stayed. In all probability on the basis of the order dated 1.9.1986, the petitioner had been allowed to work on the post of Assistant Engineer and despite the allegations made in the counter-affidavit, the interim order has not been vacated so far.
8. In view of the nature of the petitioner's appointment and the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is established that the petitioner has no legal right to be retained on the post of Assistant Engineer and the impugned orders dated 26.7.1986 and 2.8.1986 do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been allowed to continue on the post of Assistant Engineer in view of the interim orders, we are of the opinion that in case the petitioner, on the basis of his seniority and suitability, has also been able to attain the post of Assistant Engineer or even higher post on promotion, the dismissal of the writ petition would not prejudice, in any manner, his rights which he has already attained. If the petitioner on the availability of the post and in accordance with the Service Rules by virtue of his seniority and suitability has been absorbed, he would not be reverted or put to any disadvantage by the dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Subject to above direction, the petition is dismissed.