Civil Writ Petition No.18474 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18474 of 2009 Date of Decision: 01st June, 2011 Sham Lal Goyal ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Others ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.18604 of 2009 Jatinder Pal ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Harsimran Singh Sethi Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.I.D.Singla Advocate for respondent No.2. * * * Permod Kohli, J.(Oral) Since the impugned order is common, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) whereby, they have been ordered to be reverted from the post of Senior Lecturers to the post of Lecturer retrospectively w.e.f.28.11.2003 and consequently, respondents No.2 and 3 have been promoted as Senior Lecturer w.e.f. 21.10.2003 in place of the petitioner from the said date. Consequently, the petitioners have been ordered to be promoted as Senior Lecturer w.e.f. 24.05.2006 on the basis of recommendations of DPC held on 10.04.2010. Civil Writ Petition No.18474 of 2009 2 The actual matrix leading to the filing of the present petitions is briefly noticed as under: Four vacancies of Senior Lecturers became available in the year 2000. Out of four posts, two posts were for general categories and two posts were for reserved categories for the eligible lecturers in the department of Technical Education and Industrial Training. A DPC was held on 21.06.2000. Since no reserved category candidates were available , the DPC recommended to carry forward the vacancies. In absence of reserved category candidates, four vacancies were filled up from the general category candidates on the recommendations of DPC vide order dated 13.07.2001 whereby the petitioners were amongst four lecturers promoted to the post of Senior Lecturers in the pay- scale of 10025-15100. The petitioners were placed on probation and on completion of the probation, they stood confirmed. Not only this, both the petitioners earned further promotion as Head of the Department in the year 2006. Another DPC was held on 21.10.2003. However, no person was promoted to the post of Senior Lecturers even though respondents No.2 and 3 had become eligible A DPC was further held on 10.04.2006 whereby, respondents No.2 and 3 were recommended for promotion as Senior Lecturers against the reserved post vide letter dated 24.05.2006. Respondents No.2 and 3 were consequently promoted as Senior Lecturer pursuant to the recommendations of the DPC w.e.f. 24.05.2006. It seems that respondents No.2 and 3 made representations for their promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer against the roster point from the date the vacancies pertaining to their quota were available. These representations of respondents No.2 and 3 have been considered and consequently, the impugned order dated 11.11.2009 came to be passed. Vide the impugned order, the Civil Writ Petition No.18474 of 2009 3 petitioners have been reverted to the post of lecturer w.e.f. 28.11.2003 and respondents No.2 and 3 have been promoted retrospectively against the resultant vacancies. The validity of this order has been questioned on variety of grounds including non- observance of principles of natural justice. From the impugned order, it appears that when this order came to be passed, the petitioners were never afforded any opportunity of being heard and they were not even put to any notice. This fact has been admitted in para 2 of the reply filed by the respondent. It is specifically admitted by the respondents that no notice was given to the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 as the same would serve no useful purpose in the light of the facts of this case. This contention of the respondents is totally unwarranted and not sustainable in law. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were promoted on regular basis. It is also not in dispute that when the petitioners were promoted against the reserved category vacancies, respondents No.2 and 3 were ineligible. The department in its wisdom promoted the petitioners against the two available vacancies at the same time vide an order passed in the year 2002 two reserved category vacancies were carried forward. The private respondents became eligible only in the year 2003. However, they were not considered in the DPC at the relevant time. They were ultimately considered by DPC in the year 2006 and were promoted on the basis of their acquired eligibility. The contention raised on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 and also the State counsel that the petitioner had occupied the reserved category vacancies without their being any right. Even if so, the petitioners could not have been reverted retrospectively nor respondents No.2 and 3 could be promoted in place of the petitioners without observing the principle of natural justice. Without going into other aspects of the Civil Writ Petition No.18474 of 2009 4 matter, it is evident that the order of reversion of the petitioners is also violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and not sustainable in law. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order is hereby set aside. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to pass fresh order, if so desired, in accordance with law by observing the principles of natural justice. (PERMOD KOHLI) 01.06. 2011. JUDGE Seema-II