AF^ H!GH_COURT_gF_CH_HATTSSaARH:_Bil,ASPUR Writ Petition (si No. 1779 of 2005 Petitioner Indradeo Singh, aged about 36 years, Son of Lats Suraj Singh, by Occup: Assistant Veterinary Fieid Officer, Sub Centre Karra, Block Raipur, Dist. Sarguja. Respondents Versus 1) The State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Secretary, Veterinary Department, ValSabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2) The Director, Veterinary Servlces, M.P. Bhopa!. 3) . The Joint Dlrector, ' Veterinary Sen,Fices, Department, Bllaspur. 4) The Deputy Director, Veterinarv Servlces, Sarguja. 5) Shri Shankar Slngh, Chouhan, Deputy DJrector, Veterinary Services, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja. SB: Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri Atui Anand Awasthy wlth Shri Anand Shukla and Shri Paraa Kotecha, counsel for the petltloner. Ku. Dipail Pandey, Pane' La^ivyer for the State. ORAL (Passed on 4th May, 2007) The Petitionerworking as Assistant Veterinary Fleld Officer was seiected for one year tralning vide order dated 24-2-1 S95 (Annexure P/2). After completlon of successfui one year training, the petltioner was promoted, cn temporary basis, to the post of Ciass lii, Non-clerical Asslstant Veterinary Fleid Officer on the pay sca!e of Rs. 1320-40-1440- 50-2040/- vide order dated 19-6-1996 (Annexurs P/4). The petitloner was posted at Sarguja. Thereafter, all of a sudden, vide order dated ^T.- ^) 31-12-1998 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner was reverted back to the original post as Pouitry Vaccinator on the ground that he did not have the requisite quaijfication for the promoted post. 2. Belng aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 31-12-1998 (Annexure P/5) on the ground that the impugned order tantamounts to reversion and the same has been passed without affordina proper opportunity of hearing i.e., vioiation of principies of natural justice and fair piay in action. 3. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petltioner was never afforded an opportunity of hearing to estabSish that the petitioner possessed requisite qualification for the same. The petitioner was never asked for any certiflcate of the qualification. The petltioner was sent for training and thereafter on completion of one year training, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Class JII, Non- dericaf Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, vide order dated 19-6-1996 (Annexure P/4}. The impugned order is vitiated on the ground of non- compllance of basic principies of natural justice. 4. Per contra, leamed counsei appearing for the respondenVState vvouid subrnit that since the petitioner was not qualified for the post, there was no necessity of granting an opportuniry of hearing to the petitioner. In para 12 of the return field by tne respondenVState, it was stated as under: s<12. However, the appllcant was ineiiglble to ho!d the post of Asslstant Veterinary Field Officer has no prescriptive right over the said post uniess the appiicant proves that the qualification whlch he posssss entities him to hoid the post of Assistant Veterinary Fieid Officer." li. ~3 - Raju 0)0 5) ! have heard iearned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto, It is an admitted position that the impuaned order v^as passed without afrording an opportunity of hearing to the petltioner, that tantamounts to reversion. it is wei! settled princlples of iaw that any order punltive In nature visiting with evll consequences cannpt be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned against whom the order has been passed. There is no djspute with regard to non-affording of opportunity of hearing. Thus, the Impugned order is vitlated. 6 in view of the wel! ssttled princlpies of !aw, the Impugned order is bad and the same is set aside, The petition is al!owed accordingly. No order as io costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge