IN THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 11096 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 12-11-2008 Ram Phal ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Shri Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana SHRI K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) The order under challenge is one of reversion of the petitioner who had earlier been promoted as Electrician Grade-II. The ground of challenge is that the impugned order dated 11-07-2007 was made by 3rd respondent without prior notice. The respondents have filed the objections to the writ petition stating that the petitioner had been inadvertently given promotion to the post of Electrician Grade-II on 27-02-2006 from his regular post as Electrician Helper against the post of Jagdish who died on 27-09-2005 as Electrician Grade-II. The contention of the counsel for the respondents is that the services of Jagdish had been regularised against a personal post and on his death his post was deemed to have lapsed and the petitioner had been appointed under mistake which was sought to be rectified through the impugned order. The case requires disposal on the application on the application of an elementary principle of law that no person shall be prejudiced in his terms of service without affording to the affected employee a right of hearing. The fundamental precept of natural justice is breached and the justification that we find in the written statement is not shown in the impugned order itself. In Mohinder Singh Gill versus The Chief Election Commission AIR 1978 SC 851, while disposing of a challenge to an election under the Representation of People's Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the order made CWP 11096 of 2007 --2-- by a statutory authority must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be enunciated by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in SP Vasudeva versus State of Haryana and others reported as AIR 1975 SC 2292 that where the order of reversion of a person who had no right to the post is made and such an order does not show that he was being punished or the order does not cast any stigma on him, the Courts will have to see that there was no motivating factor behind the order. The judgement was referred to in a subsequent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Purshottam Lal Dass and others versus State of Bihar 2006(4)SCT 537 (reference is also made to 2006 LIC 451) where it was held that cancellation of selection on the ground that the Selection Committee had not been legally constituted nor was reservation policy followed, was justification enough for cancellation of selection and reversion. The decisions which upheld the orders of reversion do not go to the extent of saying that such an order, whatever might be the justification, could be made even without putting on a notice to the affected employee before the order is issued. We do not join issues on the merits or justification of the respondents to issue an order of reversion but the petitioner's case must succeed on a singular consideration that the order had been passed without any prior notice to show cause against the reversion. We make it clear while setting aside the impugned order that it shall be open to the respondents to take a fresh decision after serving a show-cause notice against the proposed decision and take a final decision after hearing objections and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no direction as to costs. {MEHTAB S GILL} {K.KANNAN} JUDGE JUDGE 12-11-08 mandeepkr