Susanta Chatterji, J.@mdashThe writ Petitioner has prayed, inter alia, (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the Respondents to forthwith (i) withdraw and/or recall and/or rescind and/or cancel the impugned decision dated February 5, 1992, contained in the letter dt. February 6, 1992, being Annex. ''C'', (ii) refix the pay scale of the Petitioner and grant appropriate promotions and consequential benefits in accordance with Jaw. (b) A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari do issue calling upon the Respondents to produce before this Hon''ble Court the impugned resolution dated February 5, 1992, communicated by the office order dated February 6, 1992, being Annex. ''C and -all records connected, therewith so that conscionable justice may be done by setting aside and/or quashing the same, (c) A writ of and/or in the nature of prohibition do issue prohibiting the Respondents from exercising any and/or any further authority and/or power and/or jurisdiction in the matter of reversing on the basis of the gradation list without fixing the seniority of the Petitioner with effect from February 6, 1992. (d) Rule nisi in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above, (e) An injunction do issue restraining the Respondents and each one of them and/or their servants and/or agents from giving any and/or any further effect to the purported decision of reversion of the Petitioner to the post of Field Officer as communicated by the letter dated February 6, 1992, and/or from filling up the post of Assistant Valuation Officer until further orders of this Hon''ble Court, (f) Ad interim order in terms of prayer (e) above, (g) Costs and (h) such further or other reliefs.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was initially appointed on January 2, 1981, as junior assistant as daily rated junior employee. He was thereafter appointed as junior assistant on a consolidated pay of Rs. 750-70 by office order dated September 21, 1982. The Petitioner was subsequently appointed as junior assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 as admissible to the lower division assistant of the Directorate of Government of West Bengal. The said appointment was given purely on temporary basis for a period of one year with effect from April 1, 1984. The term of appointment was extended until further order. By office order dated April 1, 1987. The Respondent No. 2 promoted the Petitioner to the post of Field Officer and he was placed in the scale of Rs. 425-1050 with effect from April 1, 1986. By office order dated March 1, 1990, the temporary appointment of the Petitioner was extended in the regular pay scale effective from March 1, 1990. It is placed on record the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Valuation Officer from June 1, 1990, for a period upto February 20, 1991. Subsequently the Petitioner was reverted to the post of Field Officer and on the same date he was promoted as Senior Field Officer. Stating all these facts the Petitioner has come to this Court on the ground that the purported resolution dated February 5, 1992, of the Board reverting the Petitioner to the lower scale of pay is in utter breach and/or in violation of Section 6(2) of the West Bengal Central Valuation Act, 1978 and the same has caused miscarriage of justice. It is contended that the Respondent is not entitled to change the existing service condition of the Petitioner to the detriment of interest of the Petitioner on a false pretext. Office order dt. February 6, 1992, is contrary to law and the same should be rescinded.
3. The writ petition is opposed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by filing a comprehensive affidavit-in-opposition. It is stated that the Petitioner has been holding the post of Senior Field Officer in the scale of Rs. 470-1230 with effect from February 6, 1992 and has drawn salary for the month of February 1992. It is also placed on record that all the posts of Field Officers are temporary in nature till date, which are retained under Government orders on year to year basis. Service benefits whenever and whatever admissible in terms of the West Bengal Service Rules, Pt. I, applicable to the State Government employees pending framing of Board''s employees. The Petitioner was promoted temporarily to the post of Assistant Valuation Officer as he was the second seniormost Field Officer at the material point of time, in the interest of public service notwithstanding the fact that he had not been confirmed in the feeder post which was necessary for a regular promotion of an incumbent to a senior post of higher scale in a Government establishment. The order of reversion of the Petitioner to the post of Field Officer was issued in pursuance of the Government order creating the post of Senior Field Officer in an intermediate pay scale. Other allegations of the Petitioner have been controverted.
4. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the points taken in the main writ petition and also disputing the contentions of the Respondents.
5. Attention of the Court has been drawn to a judgment in S.P. Bavasudeva v. State of Hariyana 1976 S.C.C. (LS) 12. The ratio of the said decision is that where an order of reversion has been passed, as in the instant case, to a person, who had no right to the post, does not show ex facie that he was being reverted as a measure of punishment or does not cause any stigma on him, the Court will not normally go behind that order if there were no motivate factors behind that order though in certain cases the Supreme Court had taken a different view. The theory as to whether the reversion to a lower post of a probationary in a higher post or the discharge of a probationary or the discharge from service of a temporary employee was meant as a punishment leads to a very peculiar situation. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the relevant rules of West Bengal Central Valuation Act, 1978. Original records of the case have also been produced.
6. Undisputedly the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Valuation Officer. He has not been reverted to the post of Field Officer and then promoted to the post of Senior Field Officer. The scale of pay of Senior Field Officer is no doubt lesser than the scale available to the Assistant Valuation Officer. True, the Petitioner was not confirmed in the post of Assistant Valuation Officer and the Petitioner has also accepted subsequent promotion to the post of Senior Field Officer.
7. Upon perusal of the materials on record in depth this Court does not find that the order of reversion of the Petitioner, who was not confirmed, is either irregular or illegal. Since the Petitioner has already been placed in the post of Senior Field Officer and since he is found to be the seniormost, as disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition, there is no bar and/or impediment for the Petitioner to make a proper representation to please him in the post of Assistant Valuation Officer, if he is otherwise legible. Such representation may be filed by the Petitioner within 4 weeks and the same should be considered within 8 weeks from the date of filing by giving a chance of hearing and by passing a speaking order. With this observation and/or direction the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
8. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the judgment.
