R. Palanichamy v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Buildings, Chennai
2012-01-09
VINOD K.SHARMA
body2012
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 05.12.2000 passed by the respondent reverting the petitioner from the post of Forest Guard to Forest Watcher. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Forest Watcher on 5.8.1991 at Poomparai in Kodaikanal Forest division. The next channel of promotion for the post of Forest Watcher is to the post of Forest Guard. The department prepared a panel of Forest Watcher for promotion as Forest Guard for the year 1999-2000 vide Se.mu.No.Pa.1/67/8/99 dated 13.04.2000. The name of the petitioner was also included in the panel for promotion. 3. The petitioner was found fit for promotion and promoted as Forest Guard along with 9 others on temporary basis. In compliance with the promotion, the petitioner joined as Forest Guard on 5.8.1999. 4. The case of the petitioner is that all of a sudden, the impugned order was passed reverting the petitioner along with 5 other persons to the post of Forest Watcher, on the direction of the respondent No.1, without assigning reasons for the impugned order nor any notice was issued before ordering reversion of the petitioner. 5. The reversion of the petitioner was stayed by the learned Administrative Tribunal while admitting this petition. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is passed in violation of principle of natural justice, and is a non speaking order. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted after following due process of law, and that the reversion affected the civil rights of the petitioner therefore, the petitioner could not be reverted without issuing show cause notice or giving reasons for such reversion. 7. It is also contended that the impugned order being arbitrary is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is contested by the respondent, by submitting that there was no necessity to issue any show cause notice, as promotion was only temporary which did not give any absolute right in favour of the petitioner to hold the post. 9.
8. The writ petition is contested by the respondent, by submitting that there was no necessity to issue any show cause notice, as promotion was only temporary which did not give any absolute right in favour of the petitioner to hold the post. 9. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that at the time of promotion, the petitioner had given undertaking that he would not claim any right to the post, or claim future promotion. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore is that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order of reversion and that the promotion being only temporary, the impugned order cannot be said to be passed in violation of principle of natural justice or arbitrary to attract Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. On consideration, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. It is not disputed that the petitioner was promoted after drawing panel in accordance with law. The promotion though temporary was against a sanctioned post which gave right to the petitioner to continue on the post and the petitioner could not be removed from the post without following due process of law and assigning reasons for the decisions. 12. The impugned order is not only non speaking order, but also passed in violation of principle of natural justice. The letter of undertaking taken by the employer while being promoting cannot bar the petitioner to enforce his constitutional right of protecting the promotion, nor does undertaking given by the petitioner gives right to the respondents to act in an arbitrary manner in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. The impugned order affected the civil rights of the petitioner and therefore could not have been passed without following principle of natural justice. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs.