C.W.P. No.5761 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5761 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 26, 2009 Karmjit Singh and another .....PETITIONER Versus Industrial Development Bank of India and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.B.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Manish Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.2. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Both the petitioners, who are working on the posts of Assistant Managers in Industrial Development Bank of India, have filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to revert them on the posts of Special Assistants on which they were earlier working, and they may be allowed to join on the post at their earlier places of posting at DBSBU, SCO No.72-73, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. In the present case, both the petitioners were working on Class III posts i.e. Special Assistants before their promotion to the posts of Assistant Managers. The respondent bank vide Circular dated April 21, 2007 made one time proposal for promotion of full time graduate Class III employees of DBSBU as Assistant Managers Grade `A'. The said selection C.W.P. No.5761 of 2008 -2- was to be made among the eligible candidates through the process of a personal interview. Both the petitioners submitted their applications dated April 25, 2007 and April 24, 2007, respectively, requesting the respondent bank to consider their candidature for promotion to Officers' cadre. Since both the petitioners were qualified to be considered for selection process, they were called for interview and were selected and promoted to the posts of Assistant Managers in Grade `A'. The promotion order dated June 13, 2007 was duly communicated to the petitioners. According to the promotion letter, the petitioners were advised to give their acceptance to the terms and conditions mentioned therein, including being not allowed to take reversion to clerical posts, and report to the place of posting by July 02, 2007. Both the petitioners accepted the offer. This fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition, but with the written statement, the acceptance letter of both the petitioners have been annexed as Annexures R-4 and R-5, respectively. After accepting the offer, both the petitioners joined on the promotional posts at their new places of posting. After some time of accepting the promotion and joining the place of posting, they made representation that due to their family circumstances, they cannot work on the promotional posts, therefore, they may be reverted to the earlier posts and the place of posting. Since the request of the petitioners was not accepted, they filed the instant petition. I have heard the counsel for the parties. It has not been disputed that in view of the Circular dated April 21, 2007 issued by the respondent bank, the petitioners submitted their applications to consider their claim for promotion to the posts of Assistant Managers in Grade `A'. In pursuance of their applications, when they were C.W.P. No.5761 of 2008 -3- called for interview, they appeared for the same. It is also not disputed that in the said selection process, the petitioners were selected for promotion to the posts of Assistant Managers and the promotion order was duly communicated to them. Though in the petition, it has not been disclosed that the petitioners have accepted the said offer, but it has been stated that both the petitioners were compelled to join on the promotional post. However, along with written statement, the acceptance letters of both the petitioners have been annexed, which, during the course of arguments, could not be refuted by the counsel for the petitioners. Thus, it appears that the petitioners have filed the instant petition by levelling false allegations that they were compelled to join on the promotional post. In my opinion, once the petitioners had accepted the promotional order and joined at the place of posting on the promotional post, they have no legal right to get themselves reverted on the previous post. No such rule, which permits the petitioners to get themselves reverted on the previous post, has been quoted. Rule 25 of the Industrial Development Bank of India (Staff) Rules, 1980, Chapter III, relied upon by the petitioners, where it has been provided that an employee transferred or promoted from one appointment to another shall be liable to be reverted without notice at any time within one year of such transfer or promotion, when he was undergoing probation, does not help the petitioners and give them a legal right to get themselves reverted on the previous post after assuming charge on the promotional post. On the other hand, the respondents along with the written statement, have annexed copy of the Circular dated October 30, 1990 (Annexure R-8), which clearly reveals that after acceptance of the promotion, the requests from officiating Staff Officers Grade-A for C.W.P. No.5761 of 2008 -4- reversion to their substantive posts in Class III cadre on any ground, will not be allowed as it may cause administrative inconvenience to the respondent bank and hardship to other employees, who could not have got promotion. In the instant case, both the petitioners made their applications for promotion and were selected. If they had not made those applications for promotion, the other employees in their place could have been promoted. Now after taking promotion and joining on the promotional post they are praying for reversion which is not permissible as per rules of the respondent bank. Therefore, no such direction can be issued to the respondent bank to revert the petitioners on the previous posts. Dismissed. October 26, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE