Judgment

MATHEW, J. :- These appeals, by special leave, by the Union of India and the Financial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh, are from a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner Himachal Pradesh, allowing Civil Writ petitions Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25 of 1965 filed by the respondents and quashing the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, 2nd appellant, reverting the respondents to the posts of Kanungos. As the facts in all the appeals are similar, we will deal with Civil Appeal No. 314.

2. The respondent was a permanent Kanungo in the Revenue Department. He was promoted on March 26, 1962, to officiate as Naib Tehsildar under para 37 (ii) of Standing Order No. 12, passed by the 2nd appellant. He was reverted from the officiating post to his substantive post on June 1, 1965, for the reason that he did not pass the departmental examination of Naib Tehsildar within the period prescribed in para 34 of the Standing Order.

3. The respondent contended in the writ petition that he was entitled to continue in the post of Naib Tehsildar until a qualified person became available that no qualified person was available when he was reverted, that since he was promoted under para 37 (ii) of the Standing Order, he could not have been reverted for the reason that he did not pass the departmental examination as the passing of the departmental examination was not necessary in the case of Kanungos promoted under para 37 (ii) of the Standing Order to officiate in the post of Naib Tehsildar. He further contended that Kanungos junior to him who were promoted to officiate in the post of Naib Tehsildar were retained in the posts of Nabi Tehsildar and that has resulted in the loss of his seniority in the substantive rank of Kanungo and hence the reversion amounted to a reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. So, according to the respondent, he should have been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the reversion and since such an opportunity was into given, the order of reversion was bad. The respondent also contended that the retention of his juniors in the post of Naib Tehsildar was violative of his fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. The learned Judicial Commissioner by his order held that para 37 (ii) of the Standing Order did not confer any right on the respondent to continue to officiate in the post of Naib Tehsildar until a qualified person became available as that para only conferred a power on the appropriate authority to allow him to continue to officiate in the post till a qualified hand became available. The learned Judicial Commissioner then held that since the respondent was promoted under para 37 (ii) of the Standing Order, he could not have been reverted on the score that he did not pass the departmental examination, that since the juniors of the respondent who were also promoted on an officiating basis, were allowed to continue in the post of Naib Tehsildar, the reversion had resulted in the loss of his seniority in his substantive rank. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the order of reversion was attended with penal consequences and that the respondent should have been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the order, and quashed it.

5. Paragraphs 34 and 37 of the Standing Order passed by the Financial Commissioner read as under :

"34 (i) Ordinarily a A class candidate should pass the Naib Tehsildar s examination within two years after completing his revenue training as prescribed in paragraphs 25 and 27 and a B Class candidate should pass the Naib Tehsildar s examination within two years of his first selection. The Commissioner may extend this period for another year for special reason to be recorded in writing.

(ii) The Financial Commissioners may further extend the period in which a candidate must pass the examination or exempt any candidate from passing the examination in exceptional ceases on th