VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 47
259
The Supreme Court observed that inspite of the denial on
behalf of the respondent that there was no ban, the fact of the matter
is that the petitioner is under a ban in the matter of employment
under the Government and that so long as the ban continues he
cannot be considered by any Government department for any post.
It is clear, therefore, that the petitioner has been deprived of his
constitutional right of equality of opportunity in matter of employment
contained in Art. 16(1) of Constitution. So long as the ban subsists,
any application made by the petitioner for employment under the
State is bound to be treated as waste paper. The fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution is not only to make an application for
a post under the Government, but the further right to be considered
on merits for the post for which an application has been made. The
ban complained of apparently is against his being considered on
merits. The application is therefore allowed.
(47)
Reversion — of officiating employee
Reversion of a person officiating in a higher post to
the original post on being found unsuitable is not
punishment and does not attract Art. 311(2) of
Constitution.
State of Bombay vs. F.A. Abraham,
AIR 1962 SC 794
This is a case where an enquiry was conducted to ascertain
the suitability of the respondent working in an officiating post.
The Supreme Court held that a person officiating in a post
has no right to hold it for all time. He may have been given the
officiating post because the present incumbent was not available,
having gone on leave or being away for some other reasons. When
the permanent incumbent comes back, the person officiating is
naturally reverted to his original post. This is no reduction in rank,
for, it is the very term on which he had been given the officiating