IMPORTANT POINT
A reversion order must be justified by valid qualifications and cannot contradict prior court rulings or established qualifications.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

1. Since common question of law is involved in both the writ petitions, hence, they are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of brevity, the facts of WPSS No. 1317 of 2019 are taken into consideration.

2. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by respondent No. 2, Cane Commissioner/Director, Ganna Kisan Sansthan Evam Prashikshan Kendra, Uttarakhand, Kashipur, by which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Stenographer to the post of Junior Clerk/Typist and further direction is sought to respondent authorities to provide 2nd Promotional Pay Scale, on the basis of A.C.P. to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.9300/- to Rs.34800/- with Grade Pay Rs.4600/- from the date 01.09.2008, as petitioner had completed more that 16 years of services on 01.09.2008, from the date of his joining as the Stenographer in the department.

3. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk on 17.12.1983 (Annexure No. 1) and posted in the office of Assistant Director, Ganna Kisan Sansthan Evam Prashikshan Kendra, Sahjahanpur, U.P. and from time-to-time, was transferred to the several places in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Stenographer vide resolution dated 25.05.1999 and since then, he has been working as a Stenographer. The name of the petitioner was also there in the Seniority List of the Stenographers.

4. After establishment of the new State- Uttarakhand curved out from State of U.P. at that juncture, the petitioner was working at Kashipur Centre; which came within the newly created State of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand). The petitioner has given option for being allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. In the meeting dated 08.04.2002, the authorities of the State of Uttarakhand resolved to absorb the petitioner as employee in the Government of Uttarakhand. Since then, the petitioner was undoubtedly became an employee of the State of Uttarakhand. Vide order dated 16.08.2004, the Deputy Director, U.P. Ganna Kisan Sanstan, Lucknow reverted the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk.

5. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition No. 74 of 2006 (S/S) Manohar Chandra Upadhayay Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, which came to be decided by judgment and order dated 01.04.2010 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court merely on the ground that after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand and absorption of the service of the petitioner by the State of Uttarakhand, the officials of the State of Uttar Pradesh has no business with the petitioner, and therefore, no reversion order could have been passed. Accordingly, the reversion order dated 16.08.2004 was set aside along with other orders impugned in that writ petition dated 02.02.2006 and 14.06.2007, by which the representation of the petitioner against the reversion order had been rejected. However, Coordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the said writ petition had given liberty to the respondent-employer that in the event, if it was found that the petitioner was not qualified under the Rules, it would be open to respondents to take action in accordance with law. The earlier writ petition came to be decided vide order dated 01.04.2010, thereafter, the petitioner has continued his service as Stenographer with the respondent-department.

6. On 04.03.2016, petitioner moved an application for grant of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 as he become eligible for the same. This application for ACP worked as an explosive in the department and instead of pursuing his case for grant of ACP, the service of the petitioner was reverted again vide order dated 27.05.2019. It is feeling aggrieved by the said reversion order, petitioner is before this Court.

7. Respondent-State has filed its counter affidavit under the hand of Dr. Rajnish Singh posted as