IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.19208 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 27, 2010 SOHAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 30.9.2010, endorsed on 14.10.2010 (Annexure P-5), vide which the petitioner has been reverted from the post of S.S. Master to the post of E.T.T. Teacher. Challenge is also to order dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P-7) whereby the petitioner has been posted in Government Elementary School, Rajapur, Block Dera Bassi-2, District Mohali. 2. The sequence of events indicate that the respondents sought service record of teachers for promotion to the posts of S.S. Masters, who were appointed on regular basis as E.T.T. Teachers up to 11.12.2001. It is the conceded position that by inadvertence, the name of the petitioner was Civil Writ Petition No.19208 of 2010 2 forwarded who, however, had been appointed on 8.5.2002. Realising the mistake, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, afforded him an opportunity of hearing and, thereafter, reverted the petitioner to the post of E.T.T. Teacher. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner had been promoted, he could not have been demoted. However, on a query of the court, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted. In such circumstances, I find that the civil rights of the petitioner have not been adversely affected. 4. A perusal of order (Annexure P-5) indicates that the order of promotion of the petitioner as S.S. Master, passed on 20.11.2009, made it clear that the promotion was provisional and could be cancelled without notice, in case, it is found as having been done on account of wrong details having been furnished. Thus, the promotion of the petitioner was only provisional and when the true and correct facts were brought to the notice of the authorities, the petitioner has been reverted. In such circumstances, in law or in equity, the petitioner is not entitled to continue on the promotional post i.e. S.S. Master. 5. I also find the impugned order (Annexure P-5) to be fair insomuch as it has been directed that the salary drawn by the petitioner, while serving as S.S. Master, has not been ordered to be recovered because the petitioner has performed the duties of S.S. Master. In extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, order (Annexure P-5) calls for no interference and, therefore, the petition in that regard is dismissed. Civil Writ Petition No.19208 of 2010 3 6. In the context of order (Annexure P-7), learned counsel for the petitioner contends that posts were lying vacant at Balomajra, Balongi and Badmajra, as is evident from Annexure P-6, however, the petitioner has been posted in Government Elementary School, Rajapur, Block Dera Bassi-2, District Mohali, against a vacant post. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the station is 80 kilometers away and it would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner had been victimised on account of passing of order (Annexure P-5) and, now, by virtue of order of transfer, vide order (Annexure P-7). 6. In regard to the place of posting, I find that the petitioner is serving on a transferable post. It has not been shown to the Court that any career prospect of the petitioner has been adversely affected so as to cause prejudice to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation to have himself posted against a vacant post, which may also be convenient to the respondents. In case, the petitioner makes a representation within two weeks from today, decision thereon be taken within 3 weeks thereafter. 7. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed. October 27, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?