Regular Second Appeal No.2449 of 1986 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 16, 2010 Baljinder Singh .....Appellant VERSUS The Tribunal Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad, Jalandhar and others. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr. N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Baljinder Singh was working as Clerk at Panchayat Samiti, Phillaur and claimed to have been promoted as a Head Clerk by the Samiti. He has filed this Regular Second Appeal to impugn the judgment of first Appellate Court whereby the order of his alleged reversion was upheld by the said Court. The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in 1979. He was promoted as Head Clerk but stood reverted, which was without giving any opportunity of hearing. He accordingly filed a suit to challenge the alleged reversion. In the written statement filed, the fact that Regular Second Appeal No.2449 of 1986 : 2 : Baljinder Singh was promoted as Head Clerk was denied. It is explained that he was ordered to work on a temporary post as Head Clerk and accordingly it was justified that he was brought back to his post of Clerk. In the written statement, it is also pointed out that the Selection Committee, on recommendation of the Administrator, Panchayat Samiti, had promoted the appellant as Head Clerk by mistake. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court proceeded on the following issues:- “1. Whether the order of reversion dated 15.5.79 is illegal, void and ineffective as alleged in para 3 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit is barred by the fact that the writ petition and the appeal has been dismissed as alleged in paras 2 and 3 of the W.S.? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable for declaration only? OPD 5. Relief.” Mohinder Singh Mangat, Accountant, Panchayat Samiti, Phillaur, was produced as PW1 by the appellant to indicate that the appellant had received pay of Head Clerk. The appellant himself also made statement on these lines as stated in the plaint. Partap Singh, Superintendent, Panchayat Samiti, Phillaur, was produced as DW1. Order Exhibit D1 was produced on record to show that no report of Baljinder Singh was made by the Executive Officer and that the appellant was never recommended by the Regular Second Appeal No.2449 of 1986 : 3 : Panchayat Samiti for the post of Head Clerk. The suit filed by the appellant was decreed and his reversion was termed as illegal and void. The Samiti as well as the State of Punjab, however, filed separate appeals against the same, which were allowed by a common order. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would draw my attention to the order Exhibit P1, through which the name of the appellant was purportedly recommended for the post of Head Clerk on the recommendation of the Administrator and Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, Phillaur. However, nothing is pointed out before me to dispute the evidence given by Partap Singh (DW1) that the Executive Officer had not sent any report. The observations made by the appellate Court that the appellant should have called for the report of the Selection Committee that his name was recommended by the Administrator of the Samiti would acquire significance. The first Appellate Court has rightly faulted the order of promotion, Ex.P1. It is also noticed that no clarification was sought from DW1 to explain the circumstances under which the appointment as alleged was not issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti. Conceded position was that the order was not passed by the Panchayat Samiti or the Administrator. The Appellate Court also noticed the absence of proof showing that the Executive Officer was made to act as an Administrator of Panchayat Samiti at the relevant time. It would be difficult to accept the promotion of the appellant to be valid as Head Clerk. The finding, thus, is that promotion, if any, was not made by the authority, which was not Regular Second Appeal No.2449 of 1986 : 4 : competent to do so. These observations could not be dispelled in any manner by the counsel during the course of arguments. What all has been stated before me is that the order itself indicates that it is on the recommendation of the Administrator and that the Executive Officer had described himself to be the Administrator. There is no proof pointing out before me to show that the Executive Officer was ever detailed to work as Administrator of the Panchayat Samiti. The appointment order also is stated to be on the recommendation of the Administrator etc. but not passed by the authority, who was competent to promote the person. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, would say that this promotion was against a permanent post and as such, the appellant could have only been reverted by holding an enquiry and following proper procedure in this regard. In support, he has referred to Union of India Vs. Jagdish Prasad, 1982 (3) SLR 411. This was a case where facts on record showed that up-grading was not on temporary basis and promotion was not shown on officiating basis and so the promotion was considered on permanent basis. That, strictly speaking, is not the position in the present case. Here the issue involved is that the promotion was not granted by the authority competent to do so or at any rate, it could not be established from the record that the promotion order was made by a competent authority. Stand of the respondents also is that promotion was on temporary post of Head Clerk. In this view of the matter, substantial question of law would arise whether the promotion which is ordered by an authority, which is not competent to do so, could be held valid or not and Regular Second Appeal No.2449 of 1986 : 5 : whether such an employee could be reverted only by holding an enquiry? It is to be seen that no punitive order has been made against the appellant. It is only the mistake, which was correct. The mistake was due to the fact that the promotion was ordered by an authority, which was not competent to do so. The substantial question of law has been rightly considered by the first appellate Court and would not call for any interference. The Regular Second Appeal would accordingly stand dismissed. March 16,2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE