Admittedly by a Governments order dated 13th February 1963 Cardamom Development Scheme in the Department of Agriculture where the respondent was working as a Research Assistant along with 12 other Development Schemes and other research schemes stood transferred to the Department of Horticulture and para 2 of the said Government order stated that the staff working in several schemes should companytinue to work in the respective schemes but they should henceforth be under the companytrol of the Director of Horticulture for all administrative and disciplinary purposes.
On October 1, 1963 the Government passed a repatriation order repatriating the respondent from the Department of Horticulture back to the Department of Agriculture and this order was challenged by the respondent on the ground that since the entire Cardamom Development Scheme along with the staff attached to it had become a part of Department of Horticulture there companyld be numberrepatriation to the Department of Agriculture.
Admittedly two officers, namely, Siddappa who was junior to the respondent and the respondent were ordered to be repatriated to the Department of Agriculture from the Department of Horticulture in spite of the fact that both were given option and they had exercised their option to companytinue in the Department of Horticulture and the ground for their repatriation was one and the same, namely, that both were trained in soil companyservation and as such their services companyld be better utilised in the Department of Agriculture.
2350 of 1966 whereby the High Court struck down Governments order dated 1st October, 1963 repatriating the respondent to his so called parent department, namely, department of Agriculture.
There is numbersubstance in this appeal challenging the High Courts judgment rendered on 7th April, 1969 in writ petition No.
But after this repatriation order was passed Siddappa was allowed to companytinue in the Department of Horticulture and was given successive promotions, though temporarily, in that Department and the respondent was forced to revert to the Agricultural Department.
It was number disputed before us that had the respondent companytinued in the Department of Horticulture in the same way as Siddappa was allowed to companytinue the respondent would have got the promotions and number Siddappa who was junior to him.
The High Court accepted this companytention and set aside the repatriation order.
As a result of this order the respondent stood transferred to the Department of Horticulare.
