1. The challenge is made in this petition to the order dated 30.6.2002 passed by the respondent, whereby the service of the petitioner, along with 10 other persons, was discontinued from the post of Group Supervisor carrying pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and their services were restored on their original post of Driver carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-6000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is bad in eye of law on more than one count. In his submission, the order results in civil consequence and therefore notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner by the authorities, which is admittedly not done, and that is how, the impugned action is in gross violation of principle of natural justice, warranting interference of this Court. It is also contended that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and that would make the case of the petitioner stronger than 10 other persons who were simultaneously reverted. It is also contended that in the impugned order, the ground on which, the petitioner and other persons were sought to be sent back to their original post, was not shown, and thus, it is a non-speaking order.
3. From record it transpires that by the order dated 30.3.1996 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Group Supervisor for a period of six months. No order pointing out any extension is on record however it is indicated that on the basis of extension of temporary posts on which the petitioner and other persons were appointed, services were continued on the higher post.
4. So far as the contention of the petitioner with regard to violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, I find that the right of the petitioner to continue on the post of Group Supervisor flowed from the office order dated 30.3.1996 which was for a limited period. The case of the petitioner is that he does not have any other order with him itself would make the case of the petitioner vulnerable, since if the contents of the affidavit-in-reply is not to be taken into consideration, as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no other order which confers any right to the petitioner to continue on the higher post. Thus, the right which did not exists in favour of the petitioner to continue on the higher post, is sought to be defended by the petitioner. In my view this would not result in violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, non-issuance of notice in this regard would not be fatal for the authorities.
5. So far the contention that the grounds which are not mentioned in the order impugned, cannot be substituted by filing affidavit-in-reply is concerned, as stated hereinabove, the petitioner did not have any right to continue on the higher post, however, the respondent being public authority has tried to explain by filing affidavit-in-reply that the temporary posts on which the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were working, for valid reasons, did not continue to exists and therefore resulted in discontinuance of temporary appointment of the petitioner on said post. I find no illegality in the action of the respondent authority.
6. So far the contention with regard to the petitioner belonging to Scheduled Tribe is concerned, the controversy in this petition is not with regard to maintenance of reservation quota in the cadre of Group Supervisor. If according to petitioner, it is the case of breach of reservation policy, with proper details and pleadings it can be examined however on the face of what is recorded hereinabove, I find this aspect beyond the scope of this petition, and therefore, that contention is also rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission that notice ought to have been given, has relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Mahendra Narain Chaudhary vs. The Sub-Divisional Education, reported in AIR 1976 Patna 53 and Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar, son of Dharampal vs. State of Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 14838/2010. So far as above referred judgments are concerned, there can not be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law that any action resulting in civil consequences must precede by issuance of notice, however, it also presupposes that person against whom the action is taken has otherwise right to continue on the post in question, but since it is already held that there is no document with the petitioner to show that the petitioner did have the right to continue on the said higher post, these judgments would not be of any help to the petitioner. Petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Garg vs. State of U.P & Ors, reported in 2006(6) SCC 430 to contend that the order impugned has to be judged on its reading and reasons cannot be permitted to be read from the affidavit-in-reply. This judgment would also not take the case of the petitioner any further since it is held that even otherwise the petitioner did not have right to hold the higher post. Thus none of the contention has any force and the same are rejected.
8. The petition does not have any force. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[PARESH UPADHYAY, J.] mandora/