HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.48 of 2004 (S/S) Suresh Kumar S/o Phussey Lal … Petitioner Versus The State of Uttaranchal & others … Respondents Dated:- 22nd March, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Tapan Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. The petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper-cum-Jamadar in the year 1979. It has been stated in the writ petition that by an order of the District Inspector of School, Surendra Nagar dated 04.03.1997, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Daftari. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to several places. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the District Inspector of School, Haridwar by an order dated 14.01.2004 cancelled the order of petitioner’s promotion and demoted him to the post of Sweeper-cum- Jamadar (original post) and transferred him to Aurangabad, Haridwar. Immediately thereafter, by an order of the District Inspector of Shool, Haridwar dated 15.01.2004 the petitioner was relieved for Aurangabad, Haridwar. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of reversion. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein they admitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Daftari in the year 1997. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that pursuant to a complaint against the petitioner, the Lok Ayukt, Uttaranchal, Dehradun directed the District Inspector of School to look into the matter and as a consequence of which, the District Inspector of School had passed the impugned order. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, the contents of para 15 of the petition have been admitted, namely, that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while passing the reversion order. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the order of reversion entails civil consequences for which it is necessary that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given. The principles of natural justice, as enumerated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, was not complied with by the respondents. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.01.2004, by which the petitioner’s promotion order was cancelled and the petitioner was demoted to the post of Sweeper-cum-Jamadar (original post) and was transferred to Aurangabad, Haridwar, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 22.03.2010 LSR