THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.926 of 2003 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The respondent herein was appointed as Maistry in 1975 in the appellants-Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, and was promoted as Senior Maistry in 1984. After completion of eight years of service, he was duly selected for promotion in the interview conducted by the Company and was promoted as Sub-Overseer Grade-C vide proceedings dated 19.03.1991. His services were also confirmed in his promotional post on 24.07.1991. While so, the first appellant vide order dated 27.10.1992, cancelled his promotion on the ground that he was not eligible for the said post as per the rules, and reverted him to his substantive post of Senior Maistry. Challenging the said order, he filed W.P.No.14613 of 1992. Through order dated 22.04.2002, the learned single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition holding that as the respondent is qualified to hold the post of Sub-Overseer Grade-C, the Company selected him after conducting the interview and that no material is placed by the Company about the grounds of cancellation and no prior notice was issued. Assailing the same, the Company filed the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Company and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. As per the scheme of the Company, for promotion from the post of Senior Maistry Grade-D to the post of Sub-Overseer Grade-C, an employee should pass five subjects in lower grade of civil engineering examinations. The respondent being qualified for the same, called for interview and was duly selected by the Interview Committee vide order dated 19.02.1991. Since the Company has not placed any material about cancellation of promotion of the respondent by reverting to the post of Senior Maistry and no notice was issued to the respondent before passing such order, this Court is of the view that the learned single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order in favour of the respondent and there is no need to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the Company to take action against the respondent, if it so chooses, in accordance with law, by giving him notice and opportunity. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:22.09.2011 sj