HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED W.P.No.717 of 2000 O R D E R: Challenging the action of the 1st respondent in reverting the petitioner from the post of Library Professional to the post of Book Bearer with retrospective effect from 30.01.1999 and directing to recover the salary paid in the said post, without any notice or giving him any opportunity, the present writ petition is filed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-University in the year 1986 initially on daily wage basis and his services were regularised in the year 1988. Thereafter, he was promoted as Book bearer. It is stated that one Sri S.Mohan Reddy, who was initially appointed in the year 1987 as Library Professional in the respondent-University on daily wage basis, was subsequently absorbed as Library Assistant in the year 1996 and at that time, Sri L.Pandurangaiah, who was also working as Library Professional, has been promoted to the higher post and he is now working as Asst.Librarian. Therefore, the post of Library Professional held by them fell vacant. It is also stated that the 1st respondent has referred the case of the petitioner to the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which met on 30.01.1999 and it selected the petitioner and recommended his case for promotion as Library Professional in the scale of pay of Rs.1875-3750. Based on the recommendations of the DPC, the 1st respondent by Proc.No. PSTU/Admn-2/NT/99, dated 30.01.1999, promoted the petitioner to the post of Library Professional in the said scale of pay and he had joined duty on the same date. It is his further grievance that the respondent-University by Proceedings PSTU/Admn-2/NT/99, dated 17.01.2000, reverted him from the post of Library Professional to the post of Book Bearer with retrospective effect from 30.01.1999 and also directed to recover the pay and allowance paid to him and the said impugned proceedings issued based on the resolution passed by the Executive Council, the 2nd respondent herein in its meeting held on 17.11.1999. It is submitted that the present Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the respondent-University succumbed to the pressures of the rival union in the respondent-University and mislead the Executive Council in its meeting held on 17.11.1999 and got approval of the reversion of 4 employees including the petitioner, viz., Sri K.Abbaiah and Sri K.Ramakrishnama Raju were reverted from the post of Dy.Executive Engineer to the post of Asst.Engineer and Dr. B.Raj Gopal was reverted from the post of Dy.Librarian to the post of Asst.Librarian. They have issued reversion orders vide separate proceedings dated 30.12.1999. All the three above Officers of the respondent-University have filed Writ Petition Nos.25 of 2000, 46 of 2000 and 160 of 2000 respectively and this Court by order dated 05.01.2000, while admitting all the above three writ petitions was pleased to grant interim suspension of all the reversion orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when once the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted and which met on 03.01.1999 and has recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion as Library Professional, the 1st respondent vide its proceedings dated 30.01.1999 promoted the petitioner to the said post, therefore, the issuance of the impugned order dated 17.01.2000 in reverting the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice, as the said order issued without any notice to the petitioner, which is the basic requirement of following the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the petitioner cannot seek to be continued in the post of Library Professional as the said post is not sanctioned by the University. He also contended that as there is no post of Library Professional as per the sanctioned cadre, no qualifications for such post have been prescribed. Therefore, any promotion on appointment has to be made as per prescribed cadre for the University and it has to be made as per the provisions of University Acts and its Statutes and therefore any irregular action if taken has to be rectified and not ratified. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. As seen from the record, the petitioner herein was appointed in the respondent-University in the year 1986 initially on daily wage basis and his services were regularised in the year 1988. Thereafter, he was promoted as Book bearer with effect from 23.12.1999 in the scale of pay of Rs.1595/- to Rs.3020/-. As the petitioner possess higher qualifications than the qualifications prescribed for the post of Library Professional, the 1st respondent referred the case of the petitioner to the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee, which met on 03.01.1999 and the committee recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion as Library Professional in the scale of pay of Rs.1875/- to 3750/-. Based on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 30.01.1999 promoted the petitioner to the post of Library Professional in the said scale of pay and the petitioner joined the duty on the same date. It is further on record that basing on the resolution passed by the Executive Council, the 2nd respondent herein in its meeting held on 17.11.1999, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 17.1.2000 reverting the petitioner from the post of Library Professional to the post of Book bearer with retrospective effect from 30.1.1999 and directed to recover the pay and allowances paid to him which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The 1st respondent has referred the case of the petitioner to the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee which met on 03.01.1999 and the Departmental Promotion Committee has selected the petitioner and recommended his case for promotion as Library Professional in the scale of pay of Rs.1875/- to 3750/-, and based on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 30.01.1999 promoted the petitioner to the post of Library Professional, therefore, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 17.01.2000 in reverting the petitioner from the post of Library Professional is contrary to law. Hence, the impugned order dated 17.1.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 17.1.2000 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, it is open to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if they are so advised. No costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 25th November, 2010. PNV