Case Note & Summary
The petitioners were employees of the Family Court, Mumbai, who had been promoted to higher posts such as Cashier, Shirestedar, and Assistant Shirestedar between 1995 and 2007. However, by an order dated 31st August 2012, the Principal Judge of the Family Court reverted them to their substantive posts of Interpreter or Clerk. The petitioners challenged this reversion by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The background facts show that each petitioner had a long service history, starting as clerks and later being promoted to various positions. The petitioners argued that the reversion was arbitrary, without giving them an opportunity of hearing, and that they had a right to the promoted posts. The respondents, including the High Court and the State, contended that the promotions were made without following the recruitment rules and were therefore illegal. The court analyzed the recruitment rules for the posts in question and found that the promotions were indeed made without adhering to the prescribed procedure. The court held that promotions made de hors the rules are void ab initio and cannot confer any right on the employee. Consequently, the reversion to the substantive post is not a punishment but a correction of an illegal act. The court also rejected the argument of violation of natural justice, stating that when the promotion itself is illegal, no show cause notice is required before reverting the employee. The court dismissed all four writ petitions, upholding the reversion order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Recruitment Rules - Reversion - Petitioners were promoted to higher posts without following the prescribed recruitment rules - The court held that promotions made de hors the rules are void ab initio and reversion to substantive posts is not punitive - The impugned order of reversion was upheld as valid (Paras 1-12). B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Reversion - The court held that reversion from a promotion that was illegal does not require a show cause notice as it is not a punishment - The principle of audi alteram partem is not attracted when the promotion itself was void (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reversion of the petitioners from promoted posts to their substantive posts was illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
All four writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned order of reversion dated 31st August 2012 is upheld. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Promotion without following recruitment rules is illegal
- Reversion to substantive post is permissible
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- Principle of natural justice
