Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 83 (JK)

Partap Singh v. State

2020-02-14

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The short grievance projected by the petitioner is that he came to be promoted to the post of Field Supervisor vide SFC order No.565 of 2010 dated 18.08.2010. The qualification of the petitioner in the order aforesaid was shown as TDC. The order of promotion qua the petitioner was duly implemented and the petitioner performed the duties of higher office of Field Supervisor till SFC order No.28 of 2016 dated 20.02.2016 came to be passed and the petitioners promotion to the post of Field Supervisor was withdrawn. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. One, that though, admittedly, the petitioner was a matriculate and never possessed the qualification of TDC (10+2), yet the respondents, of their own, considered him as a candidate possessing the qualification of 10+2 and therefore, mistake, if any, was committed by the respondents and not by the petitioner. Further submission is that even being a matriculate, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for promotion against 20% quota earmarked for matriculate Field Workers having 8 years service in terms of the J&K Sate Forest Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulation- 1993 (for short Regulation). It is, thus, urged that had the respondents afforded him an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order, he would have apprised the respondents of the aforesaid position and claimed his promotion under other category meant for matriculate Field Workers. 3. It may be noted that this Court vide order dated 02.09.2016, while issuing notice, stayed the impugned order and resultantly, the petitioner has been continuing on the post of Field Supervisor. 4. The respondents have field their objections and submit that since the order impugned only involves the correction of an error and, therefore, no opportunity of being heard was perhaps required to be given to the petitioner. However, during the course of arguments, Mr. Sethi learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 fairly conceded that the order impugned should have been passed after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and that the respondents are ready to provide such opportunity to the petitioner. 5. However, during the course of arguments, Mr. Sethi learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 fairly conceded that the order impugned should have been passed after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and that the respondents are ready to provide such opportunity to the petitioner. 5. In view of the fact that the order impugned has the effect of demoting the petitioner from the post of Field Supervisor to the post of Field Worker, that too after a gap of more than six years, the order impugned, which entails civil consequences, could not have been passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This legal position has been fairly conceded by learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 6. Whether or not the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion under the category of matriculate Field Workers in terms of Regulation is a matter which also required to be looked into and determined by the respondents keeping in view the eligibility of the petitioner and his position in the seniority. 7. For all these reasons, this petiton is allowed. Order impugned is set aside. The respondents are free to pass fresh order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.