The petitioner, a Class I officer of the Health Department, is aggrieved by an order passed by the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department, dated the 1st of June, 1973, notifying as follows: "The promotion of Dr. Ghulam Mustafa, Surgical Specialist made on regular basis with this Department Notification No. $OI--2/15-72 dated 20th November, 1972, is hereby cancelled. However he will continue to work as Surgical Specialist in PHS-1 (Sr.) on ad hoc basis."
2. The petitioner joined the Government service in the Province in 1965 as Junior Class I in the Specialty of Surgery. By an order dated 20th October, 1971 which is expressed to have been approved by the Governor of the Punjab promotions on ad hoc basis were made including that of the petitioner. The order was to enure till further orders. The scale of the pay was 750-75-1500 plus Technical Pay of Rs. 100 p.m. This arrangement was brought to an end by an order which Was passed on 20th November, 1972 and is expressed to have been approved by the Governor of the Punjab after considering the advice of the Health Department Selection Board. It placed on regular basis the promotion of the petitioner from P H S-I Junior Scale to P H S-I Senior Scale with immediate effect. This was a regular promotion for the petitioner.
The petitioner took over charge and the order was acted upon and remained in the field till the impugned order was passed. The impugned order cancels the promotion order passed by the Governor on the recom--mendation of the Selection Board.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that his rank in service has been disturbed as a promotion duly ordered and acted upon, has been upset to his disadvantage and he has been once again placed in the same position as he enjoyed under Notification dated 20th October, 1971. It is also contended that such an adverse order has been passed against him without affording any opportunity to show cause even if it were taken to be a mistaken order. Another ground for challenge to the impugned order is that arrangement which had been approved of by the Governor has been upset by the Secretary of the Department and is not expressed to be in the name of the Governor. It is contended that a subordinate authority could not revoke the order of a superior authority. Finally, it is urged that an order given effect to and acted upon could not at all be recalled.
4. In defence of the order impugned by this petition three grounds have been urged. Firstly it is submitted that the appointment on regular basis was nothing more than a continuance of the position ordered on 20th October, 1971, and the petitioner's rights were always liable to interference.
Secondly it is stated that the order promoting the petitioner on regular basis was in violation of the rules, had been issued under a mistake and was liable to be corrected any time on the discovery of the mistake. Thirdly it is urged that the disturbance of the arrangement followed representation by persons senior to the petitioner against his promotion.
5. So far as the first ground of defence is concerned, it is palpably untenable for the reason that if the order dated 20th November, 1972,E was only an affirmance of an earlier order it need not have been cancelled for continuing the position as brought above vide order dated 20th October, 1971.
Instead, that arrangement should have been brought to an end prospectively. A reading of the Notification dated 20th November, 1972, makes it clear that it followed a reference to the Selection Board that the promotion was on regular basis and that it was not controlled by any conditions which the petitioner was required to satisfy nor was there any reservation of power by which this arrangement could be interfered with except on ground disclosed to the petitioner and after hearing him. It was clearly an order of promotion on regular basis which was to enure. It conferred a particular status on the petitioner of which he could not be deprived except in accordance with law.
6. As regards the ground of mistake and representation by those senior to him, if the petitioner were not a party to the mistaken order then it was for the Department to have called upon him and to associated him in the inquiry for establishing the mistake and after that had been done the order could be withdrawn only prospectively and not retrospectively as has, been done in this case by cancelling it altogether. If the vested rights of others have been interfered with there is all the more reason that the rights of the petitioner should be interfered with a their instance and for their benefit only after hearing him because the impugned order does affect the statute of the petitioner and reduces him in rank from PHS-I Senior as thereafter he is made to officiate or to work in purely temporary and ad hoc arrangement liable to disturbance any time in the exigencies of service. It is also true that the order impugned in the proceedings has been passed by the Secretary and has not received approval of the Governor nor is it expressed to be passed by the Governor, nor in the comments received it is stated that it received the approval of that authority.
7. The petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.