Rakesh Tiwari - (1.)-Heard counsel for the petitioners and the standing counsel.
(2.)THE petitioner claims that he was appointed on substantive post of Naib Tehsildar having been selected through U. P. Public Service Commission following the procedure laid down in Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tehsildar) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and is entitled to work on the post of Additional Tehsildar on which he is functioning since his promotion on the said post.
The backdrop of the case in a nutshell is that a permanent post of Tehsildar in Tehsil Haraiya, district Basti fell vacant on 31.5.1991 on retirement of one Sri Ramayan Pandey, the erstwhile Tehsildar, therefore, the petitioner moved an application for being promoted and appointed on the said post. Thereafter, another post of Upper Tehsildar at Tehsil Sadar fell vacant on account of transfer of Sri Bharatji Pandey to Tehsil Bhanpur, Basti as Tehsildar. One Sri Ram Kripal Lal, Tehsildar, Bhanpur was transferred to the place of Sri Ramayan Pandey in Tehsil Haraiya, as such a permanent and substantive post of Additional Tehsildar fell vacant on account of transfer of Sri Bharatji Pandey. The petitioner was promoted and appointed by substitution on ad hoc basis by order dated 19.6.1991 for working as Additional Tehsildar at Tehsil Sadar, Basti and was confirmed on the said post by order dated 24.7.1991 appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner claims to be still functioning as Additional Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, district Basti in pursuance of the order dated 19.6.1991.

Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that petitioner should have been promoted much earlier but due to arbitrary, callous and discriminatory act of the respondents, he has not been promoted in time though juniors to him namely Sri Suresh Singh and Sri Jag Prasad Pandey who are at Serial Nos. 886 and 889 respectively in the gradation list had earlier been promoted than the petitioner. He states that there is bona fide apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that respondents may revert him from the post of Additional Tehsildar to the post of Naib Tehsildar as they were threatening to appoint persons junior to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition on this ground praying the following relief :

(i) issue a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to pass any order reverting the petitioner from the post of Tehsildar/ Addl. Tehsildar to the post of Naib Tehsildar and not to pass any order curtailing the right of petitioner to hold the post of Additional Tehsildar ; and (ii) issue a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner regularly of the post of Tehsildar/Additional Tehsildar so long he continues to hold the said post.

(3.)ACCORDING to counsel for the petitioner, he has not been reverted till today ; that he is working on the post of Additional Tehsildar and is also being paid salary of the said post.
Admittedly, the petitioner is continuing on the said post even after 17 years of filing of the writ petition on ground of apprehension of reversion. It may be noted here that no interim order was granted in this case, yet the apprehension of the petitioner has not come true even after expiry of more than 17 years.