Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Respondent No.1 also approached the Gauhati High Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2015. During its pendency, an order of demotion was passed against respondent No.1 demoting him to the ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer.

7. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the respondent No.1’s encadrement to the post of Executive Engineer was illegal. It was also held that the Selection Committee erred in holding the number of vacancies as thirteen as against ten. The learned Single Judge also found respondent No.1 guilty of committing fraudulent acts in getting his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer which was also contrary to the Service Rules as he had not put in minimum of five years service. While holding so, the learned Single Judge negatived the  contention of respondent No.1 that the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein suffered from delay and laches.

8. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 filed the appeal. Vide the impugned judgment dated August 07, 2015, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order of the Single Judge thereby permitting respondent No.1 to hold the post of Superintending Engineer (PWD). The appellants, being aggrieved of the same, have filed the instant appeals.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The issues involved in these appeals are: (a) whether the promotion of respondent No.1 to the ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer, and encadrement thereof subsequently, is illegal?; (b) whether the delay and laches will come in the way of appellant No.3 in challenging the order of promotion of respondent No.1?; and (c) whether the Government was right in conducting an inquiry when the writ petitions were pending before the Court and whether subsequent demotion of respondent No.1 to the ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer is illegal?

(iv) The learned Single Judge negatived the plea of the appellant that the inquiry committee has committed gross error in not giving him an opportunity of hearing before passing the order of his demotion.

(v) The learned Single Judge also negatived the contention of the appellant that the writ petitions filed by the respondents suffer from delay and laches and held that there was a systematic manipulation at various stages to which complicity of the appellant cannot be ruled out. In the result the learned Single Judge upheld the order of the government in demoting the appellant to the post of EE (ex-cadre). The appellant aggrieved by the said order has filed this appeal.”

The question is answered in the negative.

(v) Whether the findings to the inquiry committee that there are only 10 vacancies available for promotion to the post of SE and consequent to the demotion of the appellant to the post of EE (ex-cadre)?

The question is answered in the affirmative.

 (vi) Whether the order of the government in upsetting the order of promotion of the appellant and reverting him to the post of EE (ex-cadre) is illegal?