IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8463 of 2008. Reserved on: 09.03.2011. Decided on: 11.03.2011. ____________________________________________________ Rakesh Chander Puri. … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Environment Protection & Pollution Control Board and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokinder Paul Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Board on 10th February, 1983. He was promoted purely on ad hoc basis as Accounts Officer vide office order dated 12th June, 1995 from the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts). The decision to promote the petitioner on ad hoc basis was cancelled and the petitioner was reverted to the substantive post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) vide Annexure A-1, dated 16.2.2002. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 2. Mr. Lokinder Paul Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the action of the respondents of reverting the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, his client was also required to be heard before the issuance of Annexure A-1, dated 16.2.2002. 3. Mr. T. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the issuance of Annexure A-1, dated 16.2.2002. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. A bare perusal of Annexure A-2, dated 16.2.1995 makes it abundantly clear that promotion of the petitioner to the post of Accounts Officer was on ad hoc basis till further orders. When the petitioner was appointed as Accounts Officer, there was no minimum qualification prescribed and, in fact, according to the reply, the post of Accounts Officer was not in existence. However, the fact of the matter is that Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Accounts Officer were approved and finalized in 46th meeting of the Board of Directors, held on 20.11.2001. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Accounts Officer as per R&P Rules is that the incumbent to be appointed as Accounts Officer should possess essential qualification of at least Graduation in Commerce in 1st Class from a recognized university and 10 years experience in accounts, audit, cash handling in an - 3 - organization/institution of repute or SAS qualified with 5 years experience as such. 6. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner did not fulfill the essential educational qualification criteria being matriculate. A candidate to be recruited/appointed to the post of Accounts Officer must possess the essential qualification. Petitioner is only matriculate. Since the petitioner was not eligible and qualified for the post as per R&P Rules approved on 20.11.2001, there is no illegality in office order Annexure A-1, dated 16.2.2002. Since the petitioner was only promoted on ad hoc basis, he has no right to hold the higher post. The petitioner was not required to be issued any show cause notice before the cancellation of earlier order and reverting him from the post of Accounts Officer to the substantive post of Senior Assistant (Accounts). 7. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and another versus Baldev Singh, (1998) 5 SCC 450 have held that when a person is appointed on ad hoc promotion and is later on reverted, show cause notice is not necessary. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under (para 4):- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and examining the materials on record we have no hesitation to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case the question of giving an opportunity of hearing - 4 - to the plaintiff before passing the order dated 8-1-1981 does not arise. Since the plaintiff's appointment/promotion to the post of Assistant Lineman was purely on ad hoc basis and the higher authorities directed to discontinue such ad hoc appointment, the competent authority passed the impugned order posting the plaintiff against his substantive post of Charge I Mate. The plaintiff had not acquired any right to the post of Assistant Lineman and further the impugned order dated 8-1-1981 cannot be held to be penal in nature.” 8. Mr. T.S. Chauhan has also submitted that presently the work of accounts is being looked after by the Assistant Controller (F&A) and Joint Controller (F&A). 9. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. March 11, 2011. (sck).