Reversion from a promotional post without affording an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioners were serving as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II after their promotions had been approved by the relevant authorities

On 30.09.2019, the respondent authorities issued an impugned order (Annexure P-1) directing the reversion of the petitioners to their previous posts by canceling the prior approval granted for their promotional positions

The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, primarily contending that the order was passed unilaterally without providing them any opportunity of hearing or following the principles of natural justice

Whether the impugned order of reversion, passed without affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard, violates the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed?

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem).

It relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Rajnish Kumar Mishra Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Others (2019) 17 SCC 648, which held that even when a successor official seeks to annul an order of regularization or promotion, they cannot do so without following the proper procedure and adhering to the principles of natural justice by giving the affected employees an opportunity to be heard

The Court examined the procedural history of the impugned order and found that the respondents failed to provide any notice or hearing to the petitioners prior to directing their reversion

The Court noted that the petitioners’ right to hold their promotional posts was being revoked, which necessitated a fair procedure.

By applying the ratio from Rajnish Kumar Mishra, the Court reasoned that the failure to afford an opportunity of hearing rendered the administrative action procedurally at fault

The Court emphasized that even if the state intended to rectify a perceived error in promotion, the "least that was required" was to hear the affected parties

Consequently, the Court determined that the violation of natural justice was sufficient to invalidate the order without needing to delve into the substantive merits of the promotion at that stage

The Court held that the order suffered from a terminal violation of the principles of natural justice

While quashing the order, the Court granted the respondents liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with the law, provided they afford the petitioners a proper opportunity of hearing

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioners' promotions, leaving the authorities free to decide the matter strictly on its merits after following due process