Full Judgment
Narayan Roy, J.
1. Heard Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhya, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.N. Sinha, learned Government Pleader No. 9 for the respondents and considered the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
2. This writ application is directed against the orders as contained in Annexure 1 series issued vide Memo Nos. 3227 and 3212 dated 18-11-2000, respectively, whereby and whereunder both the petitioners have been reverted to their substantive post with retrospective effect.
3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Assistant Research Officer, pursuant to the decision of the State Government dated 9-9-1978, with effect from 31-10-1979 whereas petitioner No. 2 was promoted with effect from 6-9-1983 and they continued on their promotional post for more than 20 years and now they are being reverted back to their substantive post without any rhyme and reason arid that also with retrospective effect. Learned Counsel further submits that the orders impugned are wholly without jurisdiction and the authorities could not have reverted them back as they had acquired a substantive right on the post of Assistant Research Officer. In this connection, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court as contained in Annexure 19 and submits that the instant case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court as contained in Annexure 19.
4. Learned Government Pleader No. 9, with reference to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the Chief Engineer, who initially had promoted these petitioners to the post of Assistant Research Officer, was not the competent authority to do so and this power could have been exercised by the Director in the light of the circulars of the State Government as contained in Annexures 3 and 5 to the writ application.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were promoted to the higher post i.e. Assistant Research Officer with effect from 31-10-1979 and 6-9-1993, respectively, and they continued on their promotional posts uninterruptedly and they availed all the facilities of the promotional posts. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners continued on their promotional posts for about 20 years.
6. It appears that similar question had fallen for consideration before this Court in the case of Guru Sahay Lal v. State of Bihar and Ors., bearing CWJC No. 1662 of 1997 (R) and this Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case, disposed of the aforesaid writ application vide order as contained in Annexure 19 holding that the order of reversion was wholly without jurisdiction in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the case of Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1986 Supreme Court 638. The ratio laid down in the case of Guru Sahay Lal (supra). In my opinion, applies with with all force in this writ application as the facts of this case are almost identical. The petitioners were promoted and they continued on their promotional post for about 20 years and, thus, they acquired substantive right on the posts and they derived all the benefits of promotion. Merely because they were promoted by the Chief Engineer and not by the Director, the order of promotion could not have been cancelled as the authorities acquiesced in the infirmity, if any committed by the Department by allowing the petitioners to continue on the promotional posts for about 20 years.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the ratio laid down in the cases of Narender Chadha and others (supra) and Guru Sahay Lal (supra), the orders impugned are not sustainable in law.
8. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the orders impugned as contained in Annexure 1 series are set aside. No costs.