The withdrawal of a promotion without providing an opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice. Qualification and eligibility for promotion should be determined in accordance with the applicable regulations.

JUDGMENT :

BRIEF FACTS

1. The petitioner through the medium of the present writ petition has sought the following relief:-

"Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing SFC Order No. 44/2016, dated 03.03.2016 passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby, the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Field Supervisor to the post of Helper and to pass any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner with cost."

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition is that the petitioner being qualified and eligible was initially engaged as Daily Wager and, subsequently, keeping in view the qualification, length of service and dedication towards his work and conduct, was regularized on permanent basis as Helper w.e.f. 01.04.1995.

3. Mr. A.H. Qazi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the service record maintained by the respondents, qualification which has been recorded is matriculation. Learned counsel further submits that after the approval by State Forest Corporation, Departmental Promotion Committee held on 31st July, 2010 vide SFC Order No. 565/2010, dated 18.08.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2, the petitioner along with other officials was promoted as Field Supervisor in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 1800 and was posted in State Forest Corporation Extension Division West Kishtwar and since then the petitioner has been performing his duties with dedication and to the satisfaction of his superiors.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that before consideration of the case for promotion to the post of Field Supervisor, the petitioner had submitted original certificate of Secondary School Examination (matriculation) Diploma in the office of Respondent No. 2, being Chairman of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the said certificate as on date as per the stand of the petitioner is lying in the office of Respondent No. 2. Further specific case of the petitioner is that as per the petitioner, he was performing his duties on the strength of promotion order as Field Supervisor for the last more than five years, an Order No. 44/2016, dated 03.03.2016 came to be issued by Respondent No. 2, whereby, the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Field Supervisor to the post of Helper and the said order is impugned in the present petition.

5. Petitioner through the medium of the present petition, has called in question the aforesaid order on the ground that the entire service record including the service book of the petitioner and original matriculation diploma certificate is and was lying with the respondents, who after taking due consideration of the same, have taken conscious decision in promoting the petitioner from the post of Helper to the post of Field Supervisor. Further case of the petitioner is that before issuing the promotion Order dated 18.08.2010, the petitioner has never represented before the respondents that the petitioner has possessed the qualification of 10+2 and inadvertently, the said qualification has been reflected in the order of promotion which led to the passing of the order impugned.

6. Mr. Qazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the petitioner at no stage has ever represented the respondents that he is possessing the qualification of 10+2 rather, the petitioner's specific case is that he possess the Matric qualification and the said certificate has already been provided by the petitioner to the respondents.

7. From perusal of the order of promotion, it is manifestly cleared that promotion of only such officials was withheld, who had not submitted the requisite documents which were required in original by Respondent No. 2. Since the petitioner has already produced the matriculation certificate before respondents, which as per the stand of the petitioner, is l