HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26119 of 2009 ORDER: Although, interlocutory application is listed for hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposed of by this order. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is working as Leading Hand in the A.P.S.R.T.C. has questioned the order dated 25.11.2009 issued vide Proceedings No. E2/255(21)-RM ‘Q’ of the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool District, the 1st respondent herein, through which, the promotion given to the petitioner as Leading Hand was cancelled by reverting him to the post of Mechanic Grade-II. The petitioner was initially appointed as Mechanic Grade-II through proceedings bearing No. P2/684(8)/99-ZWS-CDP, dated19.1.2001 of the Works Manager, Zonal Workshop, Kadapa. Thereafter, by order dated 18.6.2009, he was promoted to the post of Leading Hand vide proceedings bearing No. E2/255(21)/08-RMQ, of the Personnel Officer of the respondent- Corporation. While the petitioner was working as Leading Hand, the impugned order has been issued by the 1st respondent reverting him to the post of Mechanic Grade-II. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the 1st respondent without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to him. Petitioner further alleges that the 1st respondent passed the impugned order of reversion without any valid reasons. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Law Officer of the respondent- Corporation. In the counter affidavit, the respondent-Corporation, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was selected as Mechanic Grade-II in the limited recruitment conducted at the Zonal Workshop, Kadapa, by the Departmental Selection Committee and accordingly appointment order was issued to him on 19.1.2001 vide proceedings No. P2/684(8)/99-ZWS-K, dated 19.1.2001 appointing him as Mechanic Grade-II along with nine other candidates. He was allotted work at Kurnool Region, subject to certain conditions mentioned in the said order of appointment. It is further stated that in the selections that took place on 30.5.2009, the petitioner was selected to the post of Leading Hand and he was accordingly promoted to the said post on the presumption that he was born in Kurnool Region, inadvertently. In support of this contention, they relied on Condition No. 6 of the appointment order, which reads thus: “6. Their seniority in their respective category will be maintained at Zonal Workshop, APSRTC, Kadapa only”. They further state that since the seniority of the petitioner is being maintained at Zonal Workshop of Kadapa, he is not entitled for promotion in Kurnool Region and on noticing the said fact they passed the impugned order of reversion as the promotion itself was irregular. On a perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is quite clear that no notice has been issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of reversion was passed by the respondent-Corporation reverting him to the post of Mechanic Grade-II and no reasons have been assigned by the respondent-Corporation for issuing the impugned order. Further, the petitioner has been given a regular promotion as Leading Hand and he has been working as such since the date of his promotion. For any reason, if the respondent-Corporation wanted to revert the petitioner to the earlier post, it ought to have given prior notice ond opportunity of hearing to him before passing the order of reversion. Inasmuch as impugned order is not preceded by any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. However, it is made clear that if the respondent-Corporation feels that the petitioner has been promoted as Leading Hand contrary to the Rules and in violation of the conditions of the appointment order, this order does not preclude the respondent-Corporation from passing appropriate orders, after giving opportunity. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 23rd March, 2010 pnb