The importance of maintaining existing seniority lists and the limitations of invoking natural justice to revive a wrong order after rectification.

1. This writ petition has been submitted praying to quash the order No. 1391 of 1991 dated 13.9.1991 with further prayer that the respondents be directed not to change the seniority position of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 13.9.1991.

2. It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the year 1967 in the Police Department. The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1973 and thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 1984. His promotion to the rank of ASI was issued vide PHQ order No. 1472 of 1986 dated 01.12.1986 with retrospective effect from 11.09.1980. The respondents meanwhile, realised that some mistake has been committed in giving retrospective effect to the seniority of the petitioner and as such issued order No. 1391 of 1991 dated 13-09-1991 whereunder the retrospective and the order No. 1472 of 1986 was cancelled. The petitioner prays for intervention to quash this order of withdrawl dated 13-09-1991.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that once the order of promotion was accorded to the petitioner and had been acted upon, the same could not be withdrawn without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and in the absence of compliance to the natural justice the order withdrawing the, restrospective effect of promotion, and the benefits thereof, is bad and not maintainable under law.

5. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was given promotion as ASI in the year 1984 and was entitled to promotiion but the promotion could not be given retrospective effect beceause that would change the sequence of seniority of the other officials of the department and would violate the natural justice of those persons who would be condemned without being heard. In order to rectify this error, the promotion of the petitioner was kept intact to be effective from the year 1984, but the retrospective effect granted to the promotion was withdrawn. By doing so, the respondents were within their rights in view of the law laid down by the Hon™ble Apex Court in AIR 1999 SC 2583.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was promoted and given retrospective effect and subsequently the benefit was withdrawn without giving the petitioner right of being heard in breach of natural justice, sufficient to quash the impugned order does not seem to be justified from facts, circumstances and law on the point. The case of the petitioner put in plain and simple language, is that since he was given promotion with retrospective effect from the year 1984, therefore, the benefits given under the order of promotion could not have been withdrawn, no matter whether the retrospective effect was justified or not. It has been held in number of judgements delivered by the Apex Court that natural justice cannot be invoked to revive wrong order after the mistake has been rectified. This view has been taken in cases titled M.C Mehta v. Union of India and others (AIR 1999 SC 2583) and Roshan Deen v. Preeti lal (AIR 2001 SCW 4577). It is not the case of the petitioner that he was senior to any person. Even the seniority list existing in the department has not been challenged in the present proceedings. The petitioner has not claimed prejudice by way of the impugned order as a matter of right, but has only projected violation of principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice would be applicable where the acts of the respondents result in injustice and violation of the right of the petitioner. In this case, the clear stand of the respondents is that if the order of promotion granted to the petitioner in 1984 would be given effect retrospectively and permitted to remain in existence, the petitioner figuring in the seniority list at Sr. No. 295 would steal march over the other officers of the department when the promotion was actually