HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.19594 OF 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) The petitioner in O.A.No.750 of 1999 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, filed this writ petition against the dismissal of the original application without costs, by order dated 09/02/2000. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Works Clerk Grade-II on 07/01/1988 and was converted into Telecom Operating Assistant (G) on 09/09/1992. He claims to be eligible and qualified in all respects to be promoted as Senior Telecom Operating Assistant and he was accordingly promoted by the department to appear for the Departmental Supplementary Qualifying Screening Test for recruitment of Senior Telecom Operating Assistant (G) held on 22/12/1995. He was placed at Serial No.2 in the list of candidates called for that test and as per the results declared on 12/02/1996 he passed the test. Then he was sent for training in the same post and he completed his training successfully after which he was appointed as Senior Telecom Operating Assistant by the orders dated 28/01/1998 with effect from 12/01/1997. However, suddenly, he was communicated the impugned order dated 15/04/1999 cancelling the earlier promotion, which he questioned in the original application as it was without notice and without reasons and even assuming that there was any irregularity in his promotion, there was no illegality calling for cancellation of the promotion. The Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order considered the relevant rules and guidelines about the eligibility for appointment as Senior Telecom Operating Assistant and observed that the promotion of the writ petitioner was made by the officials concerned, as seen from the various documents, only after a good deal of application of mind and there was no scope for any error on the part of the department about the eligibility of the writ petitioner for promotion. The Tribunal also observed that it was only because the writ petitioner was working in the Civil Wing that the respondent sought to revert him while promising to consider his case for promotion to the same cadre in case of sanction of such posts to the civil wing also. The Tribunal further noticed that it is not digestible as to how it escaped the attention of the department that this benefit was confined only to the engineering wing and not extended to the civil and electrical wings of the department. The Tribunal further observed that in any view 65 posts of the same cadre were sanctioned to the civil unit on 17/02/1999 and therefore, the writ petitioner has to be considered if he comes within the zone of consideration for the said post. In spite of observing that the writ petitioner’s case was very strong, still the Tribunal considered it necessary to give an opportunity to the respondents before it to rectify the error which appeared to have been bonafidely committed and dismissed the original application while observing that the respondents shall live up to the assurance as categorically stated in the counter-affidavit about considering the writ petitioner for appointment to the same post as and when the occasion arises. The writ petitioner was rightly aggrieved by the said order of dismissal in spite of the Tribunal finding all the crucial points in his favour. He, therefore, challenged the impugned order in this writ petition contending that he was eligible having all the prescribed qualifications for the said post before restructuring or after restructuring of cadre and when he was called for the screening test and sent for training after success in screening test, he could not have been unilaterally reverted, without any notice or opportunity. The writ petitioner further contended that on the very reasoning of the Tribunal, not allowing of his application is therefore not justifiable and sought for the quashing of the orders of the second respondent dated 15/04/1999 by which he was reverted. Heard Dr.K.Lakshmi Narsimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Devanand, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. The factual matrix is not in dispute and it does not appear to be the case of any respondent that except that he was working in the civil wing, the writ petitioner was in any way otherwise ineligible for being appointed to the post of Senior Telecom Assistant. It was never the case of the respondents that he did not possess the qualifications prescribed for occupying the said post nor was it in question that the department itself called him for screening test for the post and declared that he successfully passed the test. It was also not in dispute that the department itself sent him for requisite training and after successful completion of the training, appointed him to the said post. If so, if the department has detected any mistake in giving such appointment to the writ petitioner, the fundamental principles of natural justice would require that he should have been given notice of the proposed action and should have been heard about the justification for such action. No reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to him and he was condemned unheard by the impugned order which also positively assigned no reason for cancellation of the promotion except that the restructured cadre of the post was filled up with ineligible persons due to which the promotions were being cancelled. As already stated, the writ petitioner was never ineligible for occupying the post except for the wing in which he was working and how any restructuring of the cadre would make the promotions earlier given illegal or irregular was not stated in the impugned order. The Tribunal itself found in all its findings that there was absolutely no scope for any error on the part of the department and the department acted in respect of the writ petitioner with its eyes wide open and with its full application of mind in giving the earlier promotion. The Tribunal itself also positively came to the conclusion that the alleged ineligibility of the personnel working in the civil wing for promotion could not escape the attention of the department and it had therefore felt that the writ petitioner’s case was very strong. It was unjust and improper to deny the consequential relief to the writ petitioner and how any order given to rectify the breach of the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience would cause prejudice is unintelligible from the impugned order. It should also be noted that on 31/10/2000 this Court has ordered maintenance of status-quo with regard to the post of the petitioner as on that date and even the impugned order specifically directed the consideration of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post in question among the 65 posts sanctioned in 1999 and there may be absolutely no doubt on the admitted facts that the writ petitioner would be eminently suited for such appointment and would be continued in the said post and therefore granting the relief of striking down the impugned order will be in tune with the interests of justice and has to be accordingly granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed without costs. Therefore, the order in O.A.No.750 of 1999 dated 09/02/2000 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, is set aside and the said OA is allowed and the impugned order dated 15/04/1999 is set aside. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-10-2009 SKM