1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.614/2008 Ram Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment :: 07-07-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Mr. Sudesh Kumar Gupta, for the appellant. This special appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioner challenging the order dated 1.9.2006 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in a Writ Petition. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Sriganganagar on 5.10.2001. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Civil Mate on 7.5.1981 with the respondent No.3 but he worked as Civil Mistry for about 15 years. Thereafter, the respondent vide its order dated 26.12.1994 promoted the petitioner on the post of Civil Mistry on probation for one year, from 1.1.1995 with the condition that if his work is found satisfactory then he will be regularised, otherwise he shall be reverted. 4. The petitioner completed one year of probation on 31.12.1995. Thereafter the respondent passed an order on 4.1.1996 and reverted the petitioner to the post of Mate on the ground that his work was not found satisfactory. The petitioner then raised an 2 industrial dispute against the action of the respondents by which he was reverted. His case was that he had completed his probation period of one year successfully and no complaint was ever made during this period. The petitioner further urged that in spite of several certificates of good work having been issued by the respondent, he was reverted malafidely. He had also submitted that the respondent No.3 was interested in another person, namely Rambabu and he was appointed on the post in question in place of the petitioner. 5. A reference was then made to the Tribunal on the question as to whether reversion of the workman Ram Singh from the post of Civil Mistry was legal and justified, and if not, what relief the workman was entitled. The learned Tribunal on consideration of material on record and the relevant Rules held that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Civil Mistry vide order dated 26.12.1994 with effect from 1.1.1995 and was placed on probation for one year. However, when the controlling officer did not find his services satisfactory, he was reverted to his substantive post. 6. The petitioner had then challenged the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 4.1.1996 before this Court, by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the relevant Rule (No.3.28) regarding probation, held that the probation period could have been extended by sub-clause (ii) and the total period could have been upto two years. He had further held that the petitioner was initially placed on probation for one year and after his promotion, an assessment of his 3 performance was made and the same being unsatisfactory, he was reverted, vide order dated 4.1.1996. He had also held that the petitioner could not treat himself as confirmed employee because maximum period of probation could be two years and it had still not expired. The learned Single Judge was of the view that there was no question of deemed/automatic confirmation. 7. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court, this appeal has been preferred. 8. We have carefully considered the material on record and are of the view that there is no illegality or error in the orders passed by the learned courts below. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that before passing the impugned order of reversion, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. It would suffice to say that such was never the case of the petitioner-appellant either in the pleadings or taken up before any of the forums below. Moreover, the petitioner has come with the case that instant order of reversion was malafide but no specific averment in that respect had come in the pleadings. So far as the placement of one Ram Babu is concerned, the case of the petitioner was that it was so done to favour him. The order of reversion against the petitioner has been passed to favour Ram Babu, cannot be a ground to be entertained for the simple reason that he has not been arrayed as a party before any of the courts. In absence of the person against whom malafide/favour has been alleged, 4 such question cannot be considered and adjudicated upon. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the orders passed by the courts below do not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. [RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Praveen