CWP No. 7737 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7737 of 1989 Date of decision: September 19, 2011 Surinder Singh ....... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O. P. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of reversion made on 1.6.1989 which is Annexure P-10 for which reasons had been subsequently given through Annexure P-11. This reasoned order came about subsequent to the institution of the writ petition. The petitioner has amended the relief suitably. The basis of the claim of the petitioner is that he had been appointed as a Havaldar Instructor with the Home Guards and Director, Civil Defence, Haryana and later promoted as Platoon Commander on 21.12.1982. The promotion was accelerated vis a vis general category employees in the sense that it was against a post CWP No. 7737 of 1989 2 reserved for backward class. The next promotion from the Platoon Commander to the Company Commander also came to the petitioner on 23.6.1987 on the basis of the seniority list circulated on 1.1.1974. The third respondent Om Parkash who had been senior to the petitioner in the Havaldar Instructor's post and who has shown as NSC (non Scheduled Caste) that included non backward class as well, lost seniority to the petitioner when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Platoon Commander on 21.12.1982 against a reserved post. Om Parkash appears to have petitioned to the administration that he was a backward class belonging to Khati who had been wrongly denied promotion on his turn. This representation was accepted and it was observed that he ought to have been promoted on 21.12.1982 when a vacancy arose over the claims of the petitioner and consequently further promotion earned by the petitioner as a Company Commander was liable to be interfered and he was to be reverted to make room for Om Parkash whose candidature must have been considered against the reserved category and promoted on the day when the petitioner had been promoted. 2. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it bears out that there is an admission that in the service records Om Parkash has been shown only as belonging to Bishnoi community which was NSC and it also records the fact that there was a chemical obliteration and a substitution has been made as Khati. This assumes significance, for, as contended by the petitioner, even when the seniority list had been circulated on 1.1.1974, after the promotion had been made in the year 1982 against a reserved post to the petitioner, Om Parkash had not immediately objected. If the authorities themselves were not prepared to properly enquire and find out how some corrections had taken place in the service record to deny to the petitioner a promotion that had been granted to him on 21.12.1982, the petitioner is justified in his CWP No. 7737 of 1989 3 contentions that his promotion ought not to have been interfered with nearly seven years later. 3. After the writ petition was filed, an order of stay of the impugned order had been granted and it is in operation till date. It appears that the third respondent was also subsequently promoted and has also been superannuated. I do not find any reason to set the clock back for a consideration whether there had been any deliberate tampering of the records relating to the caste status of the third respondent at the time when the promotion order had been issued on 21.12.1982 to the petitioner as Platoon Commander and still further promotion was issued on 23.6.1987 as Company Commander. Evidently, the authorities had acted only as per the records. It was only on the basis of the some representation by third respondent claiming the status as backward class, the petitioner's status was sought to be disturbed. If the change in the caste status of the third respondent itself was not free from doubt as admitted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, I do not think it was proper to make the order of reversion. Further I find even the order of reversion has been made without any notice to the petitioner before such an action was taken. The order is clearly vitiated. The petitioner ought to succeed and the impugned orders Annexure P-10 and P-11 are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 4. The writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 19 , 2011 archana