IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.8339 /2008 Decided on:21.2.2011 _____________________________________________ Smt. Urmil Poonga. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as untrained teacher on 18.10.1960. She was appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher after she obtained Junior Basic Trained Teacher’s certificate on 10.9.1962. She was confirmed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher on 1.4.1969. She was placed at Sr. No. 248 of the seniority list of Junior Basic Trained Teachers, working in Chamba Division, as it stood on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 31.12.1976. She was placed at Sr. No. 231 in the revised seniority list, as it stood on 31.12.1990. She was promoted to the post of Head Teacher on 5.5.1985. She has forgone her promotion. Consequently, she was promoted as Centre Head Teacher on 6.3.1992. She did not join her duties as Centre Head Teacher. She made representations on 6.4.1993, 22.9.1993 and 19.1.1996 for considering her case for promotion to the post of Centre Head Teacher with effect from 16.2.1993 on the basis of instruction No. 16.21 contained in the Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol.1 (Second Edition). However, the fact of the matter is that she was promoted as Centre Head Teacher on 24.11.1997. She assumed her duties. However, on the basis of order dated 11.7.2001, Annexure A-3, the promotion of the petitioner made vide order dated 24.11.1997 was cancelled and she was promoted to the post of Head Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 4550-7220 with effect from 24.11.1997 on notional basis. She was promoted as Centre Head Teacher with effect from 29.6.1998. She made representation on 20.7.2001 (Annexure A-4) to respondent No.2 against Annexure A-3. 2. Mr. Vinod Gupta has strenuously argued that his client has suffered civil and evil consequences since her promotion made to the post of Centre Head Teacher on 3 24.11.1997 has been cancelled on 11.7.2001 without following the principles of natural justice. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that promotion of the petitioner to the post of Centre Head Teacher was erroneous and the same has been cancelled in accordance with law. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner, in fact, was promoted to the post of Head Teacher on 5.5.1985. She has forgone her promotion. She has also forgone her promotion to the post of Centre Head Teacher on 5.3.1992. She was promoted by the respondent-Department as Centre Head Teacher again on 24.11.1997, vide order Annexure A-2, pursuant to which she joined her duties. She worked on the same capacity for about four years. However, on the basis of Annexure A-3 dated 11.7.2001, promotion orders dated 24.11.1997 were cancelled and the petitioner was promoted initially as Head Teacher on notional basis with effect from 24.11.1997 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Centre Head Teacher with effect from 29.6.1998 instead of 24.11.1997, as ordered earlier, vide Annexure A-2. 4 6. Petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexure A-3. She has suffered civil and evil consequences since the promotion order made vide Annexure A-2 has been cancelled without hearing her, vide Annexure A-3 dated 11.7.2001. In fact, the cancellation of promotion orders dated 24.11.1997 amounted to reversion. 7. Mr. P.M. Negi has strenuously argued that the petitioner was initially required to be promoted to the post of Head Teacher and only thereafter she was to be promoted as Centre Head Teacher as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Petitioner has neither misled the authorities nor misrepresented the facts at the time when she was promoted to the post of Centre Head Teacher on 24.11.1997. Initially, she had forgone her promotion on 5.5.1985 and thereafter she was considered to the post of Centre Head Teacher after a gap of five years. She has worked continuously as Centre Head Teacher on the basis of order dated 24.11.1997 upto 11.7.2001. The action of the respondents to cancel the promotion of petitioner vide Annexure A-3 to the post of Centre Head Teacher was arbitrary and illegal. The respondents were estopped from cancelling the promotion of petitioner made vide Annexure A-2 dated 24.11.1997. 5 8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another versus Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 have held that a person must be given an opportunity before he is actually reverted. He may be in a position to satisfy the authorities that there was no mistake. Their Lordships have further held that even otherwise, principles of natural justice and fair play require giving of such opportunity to him. Their Lordships have held as under: “34. True it is that before such an action is taken and a person is actually reverted, he must be given an opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken. He may be able to satisfy the Authorities that there was no such mistake. But even otherwise, principles of natural justice and fair play require giving of such opportunity to him. But as observed earlier, in the instance case, in accordance with Rule 31-A of the Fundamental Rules, notice was issued to the respondent-employee, explanation was sought and thereafter the order was passed. The said order, in our considered view, was just, proper and in consonance with law and it ought not to have been set aside by the Tribunal or by the High Court. To that extent, therefore, the orders impugned in this appeal deserve to be set aside.” 9. In view of the observations and the discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-3 dated 11.7.2001 is quashed and set aside to the extent whereby petitioner was promoted as Centre Head Teacher 6 with effect from 29.6.1998 instead of 24.11.1997. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be regularly promoted with effect from 24.11.1997 as Centre Head Teacher for all intents and purposes. In normal circumstances, respondents could have been given an opportunity to proceed with the matter in accordance with law; however, since the petitioner stands already retired from service, the matter is closed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.2.2011 *awasthi*