The breach of natural justice may not always necessitate the court's intervention if it would result in the restoration of an illegal order.

1. It is not in dispute that trained Graduate/Post Graduate Teachers whose date of appointment was on or before 09-05-1989 were to be promoted to the post of Master. After obtaining the service particulars of such teachers from the concerned Chief Education Officers, the Director School Education, Jammu vide his order No. DSEJ/Ang/Prom/M/920-27 dated 25-5-2005 sanctioned the promotion of such teachers. One of them was the petitioner. After the promotion the petitioner joined on the promotional post. Subsequent thereto the Chief Education Officer, Kathua vide his letter No. CEOK/WS/8264 dated 13-9-2005 and CEOK/WS/6794-95 dated 16-8-2005 informed the Director that the date of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lab. Assistant stood wrongly communicated to him as date of his appointment as Teacher and his date of appointment as a teacher was 10-9-1992. After receiving the said information in regard to the petitioner and one another Teacher similarly placed the Director, School Education vide his order dated 8-11-2005 ordered as follows:-

"In view of the facts stated above, Sh Manohar Lal, Ex-Teacher, GMS Rajpura (Ghagwal) and Sh Rajeev Sharma Ex-Teacher HSS, Hatli were not eligible for their promotion as Master in view of their date of posting/joining in the teacher cadre, as such, their promotion as master is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. The concerned DDOs shall relieve these masters immediately and direct them to report to the Chief Education officer, Kathua for their further adjustment as teacher in the District."

2. Being aggrieved of the cancellation of his promotion by the above order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3. The contention of Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cancellation of promotion of the petitioner tantamounts to his reversion to a lower rank, as such, it is bad in law for having not preceded with any inquiry or opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It was incumbent upon the respondents to hold enquiry and provide at least a right of hearing to the petitioner before his reversion.

4. The contention of Mrs. Neeru Goswami, Dy.A.G is that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion, but despite his dis-entitlement under a mistaken belief that his date of appointment was on or before 9-5-1989, he was accorded promotion. When the mistake was detected the promotion order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner was not entitled to any show cause notice or hearing because of the fact that his order of promotion was based upon mistaken belief. He was not eligible for promotion, therefore, his promotion could be validly cancelled without providing him any opportunity of hearing. The opportunity of hearing or enquiry in view of the fact that he was not eligible would have only been an idle formality. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case.

5. Mr. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner factually does not dispute the fact that the petitioners date of appointment as a Teacher was not on or before the stipulated date. In this view of the matter admittedly, the petitioner was not eligible to be promoted because only those teachers who stood appointed on or before the stipulated date were to be promoted.

6. In view of this factual position, it cannot be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion. So the question would arise whether before cancelling the promotion of the petitioner granted on a mistaken belief observance of principles of natural justice was necessary ?. Mr. Chouhan submits that it was necessary. For supporting his view he relies upon the following cases.

Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapur and others, Appellants v. L. N. Kashri and others, Respondents, AIR 1974 SC 1889 wherein it was held:-.

"The respondents were confirmed in the scale of Rs. 110-180. The appellants having fixed the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document