Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 109 (PNJ)

Som Parkash v. State Of Haryana

2003-01-22

N.K.SUD

body2003
Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. The petitioners are employees of Irrigation Department, Haryana. They were appointed as Tracers. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted as a Draftsman on 23.11.1981 and petitioners No.2 and 3 were promoted as Draftsman on 1.10.1981. Subsequently, vide office order dated 1.8.1983 (Annexure P-6) all the three petitioners were reverted to the original posts of Tracers. This was done because three posts of Draftsman were declared surplus. 2. The petitioners have challenged their reversion hi the present writ petition on the grounds. Firstly it is stated that the petitioners were promoted within the quota of promotees and if some posts had been declared surplus, the direct recruits who were beyond their quota, should have been reverted. The second ground of attack is that the reversion order has been passed by the Chief Engineer on 1.8.1983 whereas on that date, as per Rule 5 of the Haryana Irrigation Department Draftsmen and Tracers Group C Service Rules, 1982, the appointing authority was the Engineer-in-Chief. Thus, according to the petitioners, it is only the Engineer-in-chief who could have passed the order of their reversion. 3. On notice, written statement has been filed in which it has been stated that on three posts of Draftsmen being declared surplus, the petitioners being the junior most were reverted. Regarding the other objection, it has been stated that there is no difference between the Chief Engineer and the Engineer-in-chief because one of the Chief Engineers is designated as Engineer-in-chief as an overall Incharge of the department. 4. Mr. R.K. Malik, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has reiterated the stand taken by him in the writ petition whereas Mr. Rakesh Deswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, supports the order of reversion. He has also brought to my notice an office order dated 24.3.1983 to submit that the Engineer-in-chief had delegated his powers to the Chief Engineer and, therefore, the reversion order passed by the Chief Engineer on 1.8.1983 is in order. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and have gone through various documents produced before me. 6. The first objection of the petitioners is that they were within their quota of promotees and therefore, they could not be reverted on some posts being declared surplus. The reversion ought to have been made from out of the direct recruits who were beyond their quota. 6. The first objection of the petitioners is that they were within their quota of promotees and therefore, they could not be reverted on some posts being declared surplus. The reversion ought to have been made from out of the direct recruits who were beyond their quota. This objection cannot be entertained as the petitioners have failed to implead any of the other persons who are likely to be affected if the petitioners were to succeed. No order affecting their rights can be passed at their back. 7. Regarding the second objection that the reversion order has not been passed by the competent authority, counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P. Rangachary v. State Bank of Hyderabad and Ors., 1991 LAB.I.C. 1355 wherein it has been held that to determine as to who is the Appointing Authority for the purpose of issuing the termination order, it is necessary to find out as to who is the Appointing Authority on the date when the order of termination was passed and not the date on which a particular employee was appointed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while arriving at this conclusion, has applied the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1989 Lab.I.C. 1941 (S.C.). It is not in dispute that as per the rules, the appointing authority of a Draftsman as on 1,8.1983 when the order of reversion was passed, was the Engineer-in-Chief. The only defence taken by the respondents is that there is no difference between Engineer-in-chief and Chief Engineer as one of the Chief Engineers is designated as Engineer-in-chief. Be that at it may, Engineer-in-chief is a particular post which would not mean that the posts of Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-chief are the same. The office order dated 24.3.1983 also does not help the respondents. The order reads as under:- "The work of Non-Gazetted Establishment (except Work-charged Establishment) in the Irrigation Department, head Office will henceforth be looked after by the Chief Engineer/Design through Administrative Officer only." 8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order shows that it does not delegate the powers of Engineer-in-chief to any Chief Engineer. It merely provides for looking after of the work of Non-Gazetted establishment by the Chief Engineer through Administrative Officer. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order shows that it does not delegate the powers of Engineer-in-chief to any Chief Engineer. It merely provides for looking after of the work of Non-Gazetted establishment by the Chief Engineer through Administrative Officer. This does not authorise the Chief Engineer to exercise any of the powers of Engineer-in-chief particularly the power of appointment or the power of reversion. Counsel for the respondents has also not been able to support their stand by referring to any provision of law or to any judicial pronouncement. In this view of the matter. I am in agreement with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P. Rangacharys case (supra) 9. Accordingly, I hold that the reversion order, Annexure P-6, is without jurisdiction and it is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.