CWP No. 221 of 1993 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 221 of 1993 Date of Decision: 23.4.2009 Satya Varat Arya ......Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Parveen Rohilla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri A.K. Rathee, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 22.12.1992 (Annexure P.5), whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner was promoted in November, 1981 from Junior Engineer to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer on adhoc basis. Another order was passed on 26.2.1992, granting adhoc promotion to the petitioner as Sub Divisional Engineer. Vide order dated 2.12.1992 (Annexure P.4), the petitioner was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer. The petitioner was reverted from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer to that of Junior Engineer, vide order dated 22.12.1992 (Annexure P.5). CWP No. 221 of 1993 (2) The stand of the respondents in the written statement is that certain candidates were promoted vide order dated 2.12.1992 against the quota meant for them being AMIE, but the petitioner was not AMIE. The petitioner was considered for promotion against the quota post of Junior Engineers to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer, subject to his suitability. The petitioner was not found suitable for promotion by the Screening Committee, on the basis of his record for the relevant period. However, Shri Vishwamitter, junior to the petitioner, was found suitable on the basis of his record. It is alleged that the petitioner was not found suitable for regular promotion in the meeting of the Screening Committee held in the year 1980. It is also pointed out that the record of Vishwamitter was better than that of the petitioner and there were charge sheets pending against the petitioner. The order of reversion was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing or show cause notice. Thus, the said order vitiates the principles of natural justice. The order of reversion (Annexure P.5) was stayed by this Court ad-interim on 6.1.1993, which order was made absolute after hearing learned counsel for the parties on 19.5.1993. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation after the order of reversion was stayed. Therefore, the order of reversion cannot be sustained, as such order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.12.1992 (Annexure P.5) is set aside. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 23.4.2009 ds