WA 164/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Sharma, J Heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel representing the appellants. None h as appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. By means of this writ appeal, the appellants have put to challenge the j udgement and order dated 18.1.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5693/2001, by which the writ petition challenging the orders dated 12.7.2002 , reverting the petitioners from the promotional posts have been set aside and q uashed. 3. The basic facts are not in dispute. The respondents numbering 4, who wer e the writ petitioners, were initially appointed as Chowkidar, Forest Guard and Mali respectively during the period from 1975 to 1994. While they were serving a s such, they were promoted to the post of Forest Guard, Forester Grade-I and For est Guard respectively. Such promotions were effected by orders dated 12.10.1999 . 4. The aforesaid orders of promotion were issued by the Divisional Forest O fficer, genetic Cell Division, Guwahati. There is no dispute that the said autho rity was not the competent authority to promote the petitioners. It was in such circumstances and also having regard to the nature of the promotion, which was t emporary, the impugned orders dated 12.7.2002 were passed reverting the petition ers to their substantive posts. In the impugned orders, it was indicated that th e promotions granted in favour of the petitioners were not valid in the eye of l aw as the authority which had promoted them was not the appointing authority and that his action towards that end was unauthorized, arbitrary, invalid and void abinitio, leading to violation of constitutional provisions. 5. Against the aforesaid impugned orders of reversion dated 12.7.2002, the petitioners approached this Court by filling the writ petition, in which an inte rim order was passed on 4.10.2002 to the effect that if in the mean time, the im pugned orders of reversion dated 12.7.2002 had not been given effect to, the sam e would remain suspended. 6. It appears that the appellants had given effect to the impugned orders o f reversion and accordingly did not pay salary to the petitioners in the promoti onal posts. The petitioners had filed MC 1515/2002 claiming salary in the promot ional posts on the plea that they had not been reverted to their substantive po sts effectively. By order dated 17.12.2002, the earlier interim order was reiter ated with the direction to the appellants to release the admissible salary to th e petitioners in the promotional posts, if the impugned orders dated 12.7.2002 h ad not been given effect to. 7. The very fact that the impugned orders dated 12.7.2002 were given effect to immediately, would go to show that when the interim order was passed on 4.10 .2002, the impugned orders of reversion had already been effect to. 8. The learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned orders of reversion on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, be fore reverting the petitioners to their substantive posts from the temporary pro motional posts, they were not put to any kind of notice. Mr. H. Baruah, learned counsel representing the appellants referring to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529 (Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. Vs. Mansoor Ali K han) submits that even if the petitioners had been issued with the notices befor e passing the impugned orders, they could not have disputed the admitted fact of their promotions by an incompetent authority, not authorized in law. 9. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court dealing with the principles of Pre-judice and Useless formality , observed that when the admitted or indis utable facts lead only to one conclusion, non-issuance of notice may not lead to violation of the principles of natural justice. In paragraph 26 of the judgemen t, it was observed thus:- 26. It will be sufficient, for the purpose of the case of Mr. Mansoor Ali Kh an to show that his case will fall within the exceptions stated by Chinnappa Red dy, J in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan {(1980) 4SCC 379}, namely, that on the admitted or indisputable facts, only one view is possible. In that event no prejudice ca n be said to have been caused to Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan though notice has not been issued. 10. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the writ petitioners had been given promotion by the DFO, Genetic Cell without any competence and jur isdiction. This is the precise reason as to why in the writ petition, the petiti oners did not dispute the plea of the respondents / appellants that the said aut hority had no jurisdiction to promote the petitioners. Only ground on which the writ petition was structured is alleged violation of the principles of natural j ustice. 11. As will be evident from the orders of promotion itself, the DFO, Genetic Cell Division, not only did not obtain the approval of the competent authority towards promotion of the petitioners to the promotional posts, even the copies o f the orders of promotion were not marked to the competent authority and for tha t matter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam and the Govt. of Ass am in the Forest Department. It was in such circumstances, direction was issued to take remedial measures and consequently the impugned orders of reversion had been passed. 12. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the orders of reversion on the alleged ground of violation of principles of natural justice, has issued fur ther direction to regularize the services of the writ petitioners in the promoti onal posts. There was no such prayer in the writ petition. Only prayer was to se t aside and quash the impugned orders of reversion. Admittedly, the petitioners were promoted on temporary basis. Needless to say that an incumbent cannot claim promotion as a matter of right and promotions will have to be earned on the bas is of the provisions in the rules and other parameters and yardsticks applicable for promotions. 13. Although, in the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has held that no argument was advanced regarding competence and jurisdiction of the DFO, Genet ic Cell, who had given promotion but on perusal of records, what we find is that in the counter affidavit and even in the impugned orders of reversion itself, i t was clearly depicted that the said authority was not the competent authority a nd consequently, he could not have granted the promotions, which in the impugned order, had been depicted as unauthorized, arbitrary, invalid and void abinitio, leading to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the above, we are inclined to accept this appeal by setting a side and quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 18.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5693/2001. 15. The writ appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.