RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).---The learned counsel' had referred to the impugned letter dated 10-12-1992, whereby the appellant without notice had been reverted to rank of constable with effect from 19-2-1992, the date when he had been promoted as head constable (B-7) against the post of an ASI vide letter dated 24-2-1992.
2. The learned counsel had mentioned that this was victimisation of the appellant and a mala fide action of the respondent-Department which had promoted him as head constable vide order dated 24-2-1992 and had reverted him without any reason to his original post of constable giving effect from 19-2-1992. The appellant was a regular employee and he had cleared the departmental PTS Course much earlier than the private respondents 4 to 7 who happened to be senior to him, but had been dropped by the DPC for promotion as HC in the meeting held on 19-2-1992, because they had not cleared the departmental PTS Course.
3. The learned counsel had mentioned that the appellant had made a departmental representation on 5-5-1993, which had been rejected by the department vide letter dated 26-1- 1994. He had requested for the acceptance of the appeal with the prayer as under:-- "It is prayed-- (a)that the impugned orders dated 10-12-1992 and 26-1-1994 regarding reversion of the appellant and withholding of his representation may kindly be set aside/modified/varied as being void, incompetent and illegal; (b)that the appellant may be ordered to be restored and allowed continued promotion as HC with effect from 19-2-1992 with all back benefits; (c)that the appeal may kindly be accepted with costs."
4. The learned counsel and the representative of the respondent---Department had mentioned that the appeal was time-barred, because the impugned order had been issued on 10-12-1992 and he had made a departmental representation on 5-5-1993. His representation had been rejected as time-barred vide letter dated 26-1-1994. Further, they had clarified that the appellant was a junior constable and the private respondents 4 to 7 were senior to him. The department/DPC had considered appellant's name for temporary promotion, when the senior private respondents had been doing PTS Course and incidentally their names could not be placed before the DPC for consideration of promotion as H.C. After successful completion of the FITS Course, the cases of senior private respondents 4 to 7 had been considered by the department/DPC and they had been promoted vide order dated 10-12-1992, when the reversion of the appellant had taken place. The learned counsel and the departmental representative had also impressed upon that under clause 21 of the APT Rules, the appellant was still under probation, when he had been reverted. The appellant had been promoted vide order dated 24-2-1992, reverted vide order dated 10-12-1992 i.e. Within one year and he had not completed the probation period of two years. As such there was no legal force and substance in the appeal, which should be dismissed.
5. After hearing the parties, we find that the respondents 4 to 7 were senior to the appellant, had been undergoing departmental PTS training courses, when the case of the appellant had been considered by the DPC and appellant had temporarily been promoted as HC against higher vacancy of ASI. Upon successful completion of training, respondents 4 to 7 had been considered by the department/DPC, approved for promotion as HCs and consequently the appellant had to be reverted to his original post of constable. There was no violation of the rules or victimisation and mala fide done to the appellant, because he was junior to the respondents 4 to 7 and his reversion had taken effect within two years of probation. The departmental action was correct in promoting the senior respondents as HCs and reverting the appellant as constable. As such no interference is legally required. The appeal is without merit and substance and is accordingly dismissed. No order for costs. Parties be informed.