Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a reversion order dated 12.12.2017 issued by the respondent authorities, reverting the petitioner from the promotional post of Work Charge Work Assistant to Work Charge Karkoon (Clerk) on the ground that he did not clear the departmental examination within one year from his appointment to the promotional post on 2nd March 2009. The petitioner, appointed as a daily wager in 1983 and promoted over the years, contended that he was not sent for training by the respondents for about five years after his promotion, through no fault of his own, and only completed training in 2015, successfully clearing the examination later. He argued that the reversion was arbitrary, violated the Gujarat Work Assistant (Departmental Examination) Rules, 2009, and was passed without observing principles of natural justice. The respondents defended the order, stating it was conditional upon clearing the examination within one year. The court examined Rules 4, 6, and 7 of the 2009 Rules, finding no provision requiring clearance of the examination within one year; instead, the rules allow three chances within three years from training completion. The court held that the reversion order was based on a non-existent rule, making it arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and also passed without natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order, directing that the petitioner, who had retired during pendency, be entitled to differential pay for the interregnum period.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion and Reversion - Validity of Reversion Order - Gujarat Work Assistant (Departmental Examination) Rules, 2009 - Petitioner promoted to Work Charge Work Assistant in 2009 but not sent for training timely by respondents - Reversion order passed for not clearing departmental examination within one year - Court held that Rules 2009 do not prescribe one-year deadline for clearing examination; reversion based on non-existent rule is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 - Impugned order quashed as unsustainable (Paras 10-11). B) Service Law - Departmental Examination Rules - Interpretation of Rules 4, 6, and 7 - Gujarat Work Assistant (Departmental Examination) Rules, 2009 - Rules require examination twice a year and allow three chances within three years from training completion - No provision mandates clearing examination within one year from appointment - Court found reversion order contrary to rules, warranting interference (Paras 10-11). C) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Violation in Reversion - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 - Reversion order passed without hearing petitioner or considering his lack of fault in training delay - Court held order passed without observing principles of natural justice, making it erroneous and perverse - Order quashed on this additional ground (Paras 4.3, 11).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the impugned reversion order dated 12.12.2017, which reverted the petitioner from the promotional post of Work Charge Work Assistant to Work Charge Karkoon (Clerk) for not clearing the departmental examination within one year, is sustainable in law, particularly in light of the Gujarat Work Assistant (Departmental Examination) Rules, 2009 and principles of natural justice.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside impugned order No. 472 of 2017 dated 12.12.2017, and held petitioner entitled to difference in pay for interregnum period as he retired during pendency.
