LPA No. 1326 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1326 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 1, 2009 Raj Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, setting aside reversion order for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and giving liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter, without the appellant being taken back on the promoted post, till the matter is decided afresh and also making it clear that the appellant will be entitled to claim benefit accruing from the final order to be passed. 2. The appellant was appointed as J.B.T. Teacher in the year 2000 and was promoted as Hindi Teacher on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the year 2007. On 30.5.2008 order of reversion was passed without giving any opportunity. The said order was challenged by filing writ petition. The State defended the order on the ground that appointment of appellant to the post of J.B.T. Teacher itself was under challenge and in such circumstances, the appellant could not have been promoted. 3. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the appellant that it LPA No. 1326 of 2009 2 was necessary to follow the principles of natural justice and accordingly set aside the order of reversion. However, by referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and others (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 727, the State was given liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, without taking the appellant back on promoted post but made it clear that the appellant would be entitled to benefit of the order which may finally be passed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. It is not disputed that the course adopted by learned Single Judge is in accordance with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Karunakar (supra). No prejudice would be caused to the appellant if liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law is given and right of the appellant to benefits accruing from final order is left undisturbed. In view of judgment in B. Karunakar (supra), the appellant could not be held to be entitled to be restored to the promoted post, merely on setting aside order of reversion for violation of principles of natural justice. 6. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 1, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE