AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR. ITS COMMISSIONER ETC. versus JAYANT S/O SARVOTTAMRAO KHARWADKAR ETC. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 986 · Decided: 21-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 986
986
AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
THR. ITS COMMISSIONER ETC.
v.
JAYANT S/O SARVOTTAMRAO KHARWADKAR ETC. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8908-8910 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 21, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law: Reversion – First Respondent was appointed
as a Junior Engineer in Engineering Department of appellant-
Corporation – He was transferred to the Planning Department on
temporary basis in the post of Planning Assistant – In the seniority
list published in 1992, he was shown as Planning Assistant in
Planning Department – After the appellant-Corporation converted
the post of Administrative Officer to that of Town Planner, the first
respondent was promoted on 29.6.1998 as Town Planner – A writ
petition was filed before the Bombay High Court by one ‘SD’
challenging the promotion which was granted to the post of Deputy
Engineer in the Engineering Department – Respondent was not a
party to the proceedings – High Court allowed the writ petition
and set aside the promotion order – In final seniority list, the first
respondent was shown at Serial No.13 as sectional Engineer as
on 1.1.1995 (w.e.f. 27.12.1990) – Thereafter, a provisional
seniority list of Deputy Engineers was published in which the first
respondent was shown as a Deputy Engineer w.e.f. 7.12.1998 –
On objection to the seniority list, his name was deleted on the
ground that Town Planning Department to which first respondent
belonged was a separate Department – However, the very next day,
i.e. on 28.8.2002, he was reverted to the post of Sectional Engineer
– First respondent challenged order of reversion before High Court
– High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the promotion
granted to the first respondent was illegal inasmuch as it was in
violation of the principle of seniority-cum-merit – Special leave
petition filed by respondent dismissed – First respondent filed review
petition which was allowed by High Court – Review petition of
appellant was dismissed – Hence these appeals – Held: The
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
Municipal Commissioner’s decision to revert the first respondent
from the post of Town Planner which he had held since his
appointment on probation on 29.6.1998 and after his confirmation
in service on the completion of probation on 29.5.1999 was without
hearing the respondent – Reversion of an employee is a matter of
substantive prejudice – Hence, an opportunity of hearing is
required to be afforded before an order of reversion is passed –
Municipal Commissioner on 27.8.2002 issued an order deleting the
name of the first respondent from the seniority list of Deputy
Engineers, noting that the Town Planning Department to which the
first respondent belongs was a distinct department of the Municipal
Corporation – The reversion of the first respondent from the post
of Town Planner was without furnishing either a notice to show-
cause or an opportunity of being heard to the first respondent –
This is manifestly contrary to law – Natural justice.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  The Municipal Commissioner’s decision to revert
the first respondent from the post of Town Planner which he had
held since his appointment on probation on 29 June 1998 and
after his confirmation in service on the completion of probation
on 29 May 1999 was without hearing the respondent. Reversion
of an employee is a matter of substantive prejudice. Hence there
can be no gainsaying the fact that an opportunity of being heard
is required to be afforded before an order of reversion is passed.
The Municipal Commissioner issued an order deleting the name
of the first respondent from the seniority list of Deputy
Engineers, noting that the Town Planning Department to which
the first respondent belongs was a distinct department of the
Municipal Corporation. The reversion of the first respondent
from the post of Town Planner was without furnishing either a
notice to show-cause or an opportunity of being heard to the first
respondent. The order of reversion  is set aside on the ground
that the order was passed in manifest violation of principles of
natural justice. [Paras 16, 17] [993-C-E-G-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8908-
8910 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2012 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Civil
AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. JAYANT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.