Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 220 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal Sharma v. Union of India

2003-02-11

ANIL DEV SINGH, RAJESH BALIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench dated 3rd May, 2002 by virtue of which original application of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows : On 12th June 1997, the petitioner was given charge of the post of E.D.S.P.M (Extra Departmental Sub Post Master), Sobhasar pending final selection of a candidate for the same. On 4th October, 1997, an advertisement was issued for filling up the post of EDSPM on permanent basis. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post. On 8/17 July 1998 the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post with effect from 20th October, 1998. Later, the first respondent directed the petitioner to join as EDMC (Extra-departmental Mail Carrier), a lower post on the ground that the vacancy in the post of EDSPM which was caused by the dismissal of the fourth respondent was not available since the fourth respondent had been reinstated. The petitioner not being satisfied with the action of the first respondent, filed an Original Application before the Tribunal seeking relief of appointment to the post of EDSPM. The Tribunal rejected the application for the reason that no vacancy in respect of the post of EDSPM existed since the fourth respondent had to be accommodated against that post after his reinstatement. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal has filed the instant writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner applied for the post in question after the vacancy in the post of EDSPM was advertised by the first respondent. The petitioner was duly selected and appointed to the post of EDSPM with effect from 20th October, 1998 against a clear vacancy. It was only after selection and appointment of the petitioner to the post that on 21st January, 2002 the first respondent passed an order whereby the petitioner was asked to join lower post of EDMC at Bhimsar. This order in essence effected the reversion of the petitioner from the post of EDSPM to the post of EDMC. The reversion was ordered not on account of any misconduct of the petitioner but on account of the arbitrary action of the first respondent. This order in essence effected the reversion of the petitioner from the post of EDSPM to the post of EDMC. The reversion was ordered not on account of any misconduct of the petitioner but on account of the arbitrary action of the first respondent. There was no valid and legitimate ground to deny the petitioner the post of EDSPM against which he was functioning. Just because the fourth respondent was reinstated after the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on him was modified in the year 2002, was no ground to revert the petitioner to the post of EDMC. The fourth respondent could have been accommodated by creating a supernumerary post. But accommodating the fourth respondent by reverting the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law. Therefore, the petitioner could not be dislodged from the post of EDSPM in this manner for no fault of his and without complying with the principles of natural justice. 5. In the circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The first respondent is directed to post the petitioner against the post of EDSPM within a period of one month. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.Petition allowed. *******