CWP No. 8293 of 2008. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8293 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th December, 2010. Surjit Singh Petitioner through Mr. H.R.Bhardwaj, Advocate Versus P.S.E.B.& Ors. Respondents through Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate Mr. Inderjit Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner is aggrieved by the final seniority list of Telephone Mechanics issued by the respondent Board and the consequential order dated 23.10.2007 [Annexure P-1] reverting him from the post of Junior Engineer-II[Communication] to the post of Telephone Mechanic. [2]. Suffice it to mention here that there is an inter-se seniority dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The 3rd respondent along with his other colleagues filed CWP No. 3324 of 2004 [Brahm Parshad & Ors. V PSEB & Ors.] challenging the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list of Telephone Mechanics. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to hear the objections and finalize the seniority list. A tentative seniority list of Telephone Mechanics was issued pursuant thereto in which the petitioner was admittedly placed above CWP No. 8293 of 2008. ::-2-:: respondent No. 3. The petitioner had obviously no occasion to submit any objections against the said tentative seniority list. Respondent No. 3 however raised the objections which have been accepted and in the final seniority list dated 21.06.2006, he has been placed at Sr. No. 224 above the petitioner who has been brought down at Sr. No. 227-A. Based upon the final seniority list, Respondent No. 3 thereafter again approached this court by way of CWP No. 12230 of 2007 claiming his promotion to the post of JE-II[Communication] presumably on the plea that his junior [petitioner] already stood promoted to the said post. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2007 [Annexure P-6], the relevant part of which reads as follows:- “In view of the facts of this case, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing direction to respondent No. 2 to take note and decide representation of the petitioner Annexure P-8 expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if there is no legal impediment, the petitioner be promoted to the post of Junior Engineer-II [Communication] forthwith”. [3]. In purported compliance of the above-reproduced directions that the impugned reversion order dated 23.10.2007 [Annexure P-1] has been passed, giving rise to these proceedings. [4]. The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the impugned action has been taken against the petitioner without observing the principles of natural justice? In my considered view, the petitioner was not expected to submit any objections against the tentative seniority list in which he was placed CWP No. 8293 of 2008. ::-3-:: above respondent No. 3. If the Competent Authority on consideration of the record, was of the view that the objections submitted by respondent No. 3 deserved acceptances vis-a-vis the petitioner, it was imperative upon it to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner along with such objections so as to give an opportunity to him to submit his view point and thereafter only the seniority list could be finalized. No such exercise was admittedly undertaken. It is true that the petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 31.08.2007 [Annexure P-2] before passing the reversion order. Since the reversion order was consequential to the final seniority list, the said opportunity given to the petitioner was nothing but a post- decisional hearing which does not meet the requirement of natural justice. [5]. For the reasons afore-stated, the final seniority list qua the petitioner and respondent No. 3 as well as the consequential reversion order dated 23.10.2007 [Annexure P-1] are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits also. However, it shall not preclude the Competent Authority from issuing a fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and thereafter finalize the seniority list. The reversion or retention of the petitioner on the promotional post shall depend upon the fate of the final seniority list. [6]. Disposed of. Dasti. December 14, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE