Order on Board

1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 04/08/2023 (Annexure P/1)passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade - III dated 09.12.2021 was cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were working as Assistant Grade -III and were posted in different places under the respondent No.3. Vide order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-2), the petitioners were promoted on the post of Assistant Grand - II. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner were promoted and they have joined their respective place of posting. It appears that some complaint was made and thereafter, the impugned order dated 04.08.23 were issued by respondent No.3. Thereby canceling the promotion so made in favour of the petitioners. He submits that the impugned before passing the impugned order no opportunity of hearing or show cause notice was given to the petitioners which is utter violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that the impugned order has civil consequence and thus until and unless the petitioners was afforded the opportunity to defend to put-forth their strength, the impugned order cannot be passed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of Jaipal Nirala Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in WPS No. 3720/2022 dated 16.02.2026. Thus impugned order deserve to be set aside.

4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that after the promotion of the petitioners were made, a complaint was made and thereafter inquiry was conducted and in the inquiry, promotion of the petitioner was not found in accordance with law. Thus, the impugned order was passed canceling the promotion. He further submits that the petitioners were not eligible for being promoted, thus, promotion order from the inception was bad in law. Thus, the impugned order was passed which does not require any interference. However, she is not in a position to place before this Court as to whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded or a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order.

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

6. Annexure P-2 is an order dated 09.12.2021 by which the petitioenrs who were working as Assistant Grade -III were promoted on the post of Assistant Grade -II and were posted on different places. It appears that in compliance of the said order, they have joined the respective place on promoted post and was performing their duty. It appears that some inquiry was conducted on a complaint being made with regard to the appointment of the petitioners and other employees, and after conclusion of the inquiry it appears that the impugned order Annexure P-1 was passed. The record does not reflect as to whether before passing the impugned order, any opportunity of hearing or show cause was given to the petitioners to put-forth their cases. It is not in dispute that the impugned order as a civil consequneces and the right which has been crystalized in favour of the petitioner by virtue of order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-2) and order impugned as a civil consequnces by which the petitioners would be demoted back to their previous posting i.e. Assistant Grade -III. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 690 in paragraph 14 and 19 has categorically held as under :-

“9. The respondent is an instrumentality of the State, and therefore, all its administrative decisions would be subject to the doctrine of equality and fair play, as incorporated in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice. This principle of law has been laid down by this Court in a catena of cases.

14.Corollary principles e