1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7310/93 Gopal Lal Yadav vs. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Date of order : 13/10/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Inderjeet Singh for the petitioner. Shri Nitin Jain for the respondent. ****** The petitioner has questioned his reversion from the post of Additional Executive Officer to that of Assistant Executive Officer by order dated 8.9.1993. Petitioner was promoted on the aforesaid post on ad hoc basis. Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis and was discharging satisfactory service, he could not be reverted inasmuch as the promotion order itself stated that the promotion would be subject to further recommendation by DPC. The reversion of the petitioner was illegally made to deprive him of the regular promotion. It was contended that reversion was made due to mala fide action of the respondents because the petitioner was suspended due to enquiry 2 pending against him. Shri Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the respondent has however contested the petition and submitted that promotion of the petitioner was made on ad hoc basis and subsequently because of the abolition of the post, it was not possible to continue him on the post of promotion. Even otherwise, this promotion was illegal because the petitioner had not completed five years of service as Assistant Executive Officer on 10.1.1988 when he was promoted as per the requirement of the rules. His promotion was made contrary to the instructions issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Society notification dated 2.4.1980. The Board of Directors of the respondent bank passed the order of promotion subject to the approval of the Registrar, which was never received. In any case, the petitioner was removed in the departmental proceedings and subsequently in his appeal, order was passed for his reinstatement and subsequently he was reinstated but later on he sought voluntary retirement and is now no more in service. 3 In view of the fact that the promotion of the petitioner was made on ad hoc basis and he was reverted because of the abolition of the post, the other argument as canvassed by the learned counsel need not be examined, more particularly when the petitioner is no longer in the services of the respondents. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/