IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 666 of 2006. Reserved on: 10.9.2008. Decided on: 23.9.2008. __________________________________________________ Ramesh Chand … Petitioner. Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others.… Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.5. : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that vide office order dated 15.6.2005, the petitioner was promoted to officiate in the grade of SDE (Civil) in the pay scale of 11875-300-17275 (IDA scale) for a period of 89 days with effect from the date of joining till the post was filled up on regular/ad hoc basis whichever was earlier. The petitioner started officiating in the grade of SDE (Civil) pursuant to office order dated 15.6.2005, This local officiating arrangement was extended for a further period of 179 days vide office order dated 5.9.2005. The period of local officiating arrangement was further extended vide office order dated 4.3.2006 with effect from 17.4.2006 to 8.9.2006. In sequel to office order dated 28.7.2006, the respondent No.5 was promoted to the grade of SDE (Civil) on purely local officiating arrangement with immediate effect and the petitioner was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 reverted as JTO (Civil) with immediate effect. The petitioner has assailed office order dated 28.7.2006 whereby he has been reverted as JTO (Civil). The case of the respondent-Department is that respondent No.5 belonging to Scheduled Tribe category has made a representation for being considered against the post to which the petitioner was promoted to officiate. His representation was duly considered which led to issuance of office order dated 28.7.2006 based on letter dated 25.9.1990 (Annexure R-2). It is not disputed by the parties that the post in question has now been filled up by way of regular promotion vide office order dated 2.5.2008. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client was required to be heard before the issuance of office order dated 28.7.2006 (Annexure P-5). In other words, his contention is that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. He also contended that the roster has not been applied in accordance with law. He has also imputed legal malafides to the respondents the manner in which the office order dated 21.8.2006 was issued and thereafter, the same was revived on 12.9.2006. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Department has refuted the submissions made by Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj. His contention was that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice since according to him, the petitioner had no legal right to officiate. He further contended that office order dated 28.7.2006 has been issued after accepting the representation made by respondent No.5 on the basis of letter dated 25.9.1990. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 has adopted the submissions made by Mr. Ashok Sharma. It is not disputed by the parties that the petitioner was promoted to officiate on higher post of SDE (Civil) with effect from 3 15.6.2005 initially for 89 days and period was extended on 5.9.2005. The period of officiating promotion was further extended vide office order dated 4.3.2006 (Annexure P-4) with effect from 17.4.2006 to 8.9.2006. The petitioner was reverted vide office order dated 28.7.2006 whereby respondent No.5 was promoted instead of petitioner to the post of SDE (Civil) on purely local officiating basis. The initial stand of the respondent-Department was that vide letter dated 21.8.2006 (Annexure R1) local officiating arrangement in all cadres including that in the cadre of SDE (Civil) had been terminated. However, it is evident from office order dated 12.9.2006 (Annexure P-7) that local officiating arrangement was continued and respondent No.5 was promoted to officiate. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate has strenuously argued that the respondents have intentionally and deliberately mislead this Court by giving an impression that local officiating arrangement has been done away with on the basis of office order dated 21.8.2006 but according to him local officiating arrangement was revived on 12.9.2006 vide Annexure P-7. He further contended that respondent No.5 was promoted to officiate on the higher post vide office order dated 12.9.2006. The office order dated 12.9.2006 has been issued on approval of the competent authority. There is no illegality or irregularity in the office order dated 12.9.2006 whereby the local officiating arrangement had been revived and respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of SDE (Civil). It appears that the respondents were under the impression that while making ad hoc/officiating promotions, the reservation roster is not to be applied. The respondents have placed on record sufficient material to establish that this matter was taken up with the higher authorities and it is only on the basis of intervention of the higher authorities read with letter dated 25.9.1990 (Annexure R-2) that the decision was taken to promote respondent No.5. It is 4 clearly discernible from Annexure R-2 that reservation was to be provided to ST/SC category including officiating arrangement made on Circle/Division/Sub Division basis. There are seventeen posts of SDE (Civil) in H.P. Circle out of which twelve posts were filled on regular basis, one post was filled on ad hoc basis by the corporate office and remaining four posts were filled up on local officiating basis. The respondent No.5 belongs to S.T. category. His simple case is that fourteenth post should have been reserved for him since there is provision for giving representation to SC/ST category on regular promotion. His case in nutshell as projected before this Court was that while effecting promotions, even though on officiating basis, the roster was to be applied. The petitioner could not establish that the arrangement followed by the respondent- Department while issuing office order dated 28.7.2006 was in violation of any prescribed norms. There is no force in the submissions of Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj that the roster should have been applied afresh after filling up twelfth post. The roster was to be applied to seventeen posts and accordingly fourteenth post has been rightly given to respondent No.5. The contention of Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj that there is violation of principle of natural justice while issuing office order dated 28.7.2006 is not sustainable. He had no right to officiate to the post of SDE (Civil). The office order of reversion dated 28.7.2006 is neither punitive nor it casts any stigma. The order has neither any evil nor any civil consequence qua the petitioner. The issuance of show cause notice is necessary only where there is subsisting right. In other words, there is no requirement to issue show cause notice if there is no subsisting right, as in the present case. Before parting with the judgment, the Court has also taken into consideration that more or less, the issues raised by the petitioner have become hypothetical/academic since regular 5 promotions have already been made to the post of SDE (Civil) during the course of pendency of this writ petition vide office order dated 2.5.2008. In view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. September 23, 2008. (cr)