HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present Regular Second Appeal, the bunch of 04 appeals 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2024 07:23:05 :::

2024:PHHC:030241 has been disposed of by common order. The facts have been taken from RSA No. 2072 of 1994.

2. The present regular second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and the decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court by which, the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 30.11.1992 has been set aside and the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed. For the purpose of the order, facts are being taken from RSA No. 2072 of 1994.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the appellant was promoted to the post of A.L.M. on 09.10.1991 but he was sought to be reverted back so as to accommodate defendant No. 6 on the said post of A.L.M. which act on the part of respondents was arbitrary and illegal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court rightly allowed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff on the ground that the reversion order is being passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant-plaintiff hence, the setting aside of the said judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is without any basis or justification and hence, the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 30.11.1992 is liable to be set aside and the judgment and the decree of the trial Court dated 30.11.1992 is liable to be restored.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the appellant-plaintiff was wrongly given the benefit of promotion to the post in question ignoring the claim of defendant No. 6 which promotion order was withdrawn by the respondent-department so as to promote defendant No. 6 on the post of A.L.M. and the said action was in-consonance with the law and keeping in view the fact which has also come on record 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2024 07:23:06 :::

2024:PHHC:030241 that defendant No. 6 was appointed in the organization much prior to the appellant and his services had also been regularized prior to the appellant, hence, he was entitled for the benefit of promotion to the post of A.L.M. in preference to the appellant-plaintiff which decision of the lower Appellate Court is perfectly valid and legal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. It may be noticed that in the judgment of the trial Court in paragraph No. 10, certain facts qua the regularization of the services of the appellant-plaintiff as well as defendant No. 6 have been mentioned. As per the said fact, the plaintiff was regularized in service on 16.10.1987 and defendant No. 6 was regularized in service on 22.09.1987. It has also come on record that defendant No. 6 had been appointed in the year 1980 whereas the appellant was appointed in the year 1982 on the temporary basis. That being the factual position, which has not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, defendant No. 6 has to be treated senior to the appellant with regard to the promotion to the post of A.L.M.

8. The arguments which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff is that he has not been given any notice before issuing the reversion order. Though, It would have been apt to give a notice to the appellant-plaintiff before reversion but, as a period of 32 years have elapsed since then and both the appellant-plaintiff as well as defendant No. 6 have already retired from service, the question needs to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The rules of natural justice is to give an opportunity to a candidate to show cause/object to the proposal but 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2024 07:23:06 :::

2024:PHHC:030241 where, it has already come on record that defendant No. 6 was senior to the appellant-plaintiff and t