High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Rishi Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana & Ors - LPA-703-1996  RD-P&H 636 (8 February 2006)
Rishi Raj Sharma V. State of Haryana and others .-.
Present: Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Additional Advocate General,Haryana, for the respondents.
Petitioner, Rishi Raj Sharma, approached this Court through a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the State of Haryana to treat him as eligible under Rule 7(1) of the Punjab Civil Service ( Executive Branch),Rules 1930 as applicable to Haryana ( hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") for selection of candidates for Register A-I. A further prayer was made to treat him fully eligible for appointment to Haryana Civil Service ( Executive Branch) against the vacancies of the year 1989 to be filled in from the aforesaid Register by counting his service with effect from May 18,1983 i.e. the date of his entry into Government service. A further prayer has been made by him to include his name in the list of Tehsildars/ Naib Tehsildars, to be submitted before the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Haryana in pursuance of circular dated L.P.A. No.703 of 1996 2
November 16,1993. The petitioner claimed that an advertisement No.
8/1981 had been issued by the Haryana Subordinate Service Selection Board advertising some posts of Naib Tehsildars for Hisar and Ambala Divisions. The petitioner applied. He was selected for the post. Vide an order dated May 18,1983, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar accepted the petitioner and other selected candidates as A-Class Naib Tehsildar candidates. He was consequently posted for training in Hisar District. After successfully completion of his training period , the Director Land Records issued an Efficiency Certificate to the petitioner on June 20,1984. As a result, the appointing authority i.e. the Commissioner issued an order dated July 25,1984 whereby the petitioner was posted as Naib Tehsildar ( Accounts) at Jind. The petitioner, thereafter, completed his probation period of two years on July 31,1986.
The petitioner also maintained that before completion of his probation period, he had appeared in the Naib Tehsildar examination on August 14,1984 and also in Tehsildari examination on May 20,1985 and passed the same. Accordingly, it was claimed that he was senior most eligible Naib Tehsildar in Hisar Division. The petitioner was promoted as Tehsildar on March 6,1992. The petitioner even made a grievance that he L.P.A. No.703 of 1996 3
was entitled to be promoted as Tehsildar with effect from May 4,1988.
In the year 1989, four posts of H.C.S. ( Executive Branch) from Register A-I were required to be filled up and, accordingly, the State of Haryana issued a circular dated November 16,1993 vide which the names of the eligible Tehsildars/ Naib Tehsildars/ District Revenue Officers along with the service book and ACRs were summoned.
The aforesaid circular was circulated to all the District Revenue Officers/Tehsildars so that they could fill up the prescribed proforma. The petitioner also sent his application along with the prescribed proforma on December 3,1993. The petitioner has claimed that after scrutiny,his name was not being considered due to an objection to the effect that he did not possess five years Government service as on January 1,1989 i.e. the cut of date. The petitioner pleaded that the aforesaid objections had been raised on the ground that he had rendered service with effect from May 19,1983 to July 31,1984 by excluding the training period. Accordingly, he represented to the competent authority and requested that the training period spent by him be also treated as eligible service. The representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. Accordingly, he approached this Court through a writ petition.
L.P.A. No.703 of 1996 4
The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents.
It was pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner was required to under go a revenue training to work as Patwari/Kanungo and it was only on completion of one year training that the efficiency certificate had been issued by the Director, Land Records on June 20,1984 and it was only thereafter that the petitioner was posted as Naib Tehsildar and on such posting only, he could be treated as member of the service. It was stressed by the respondents that the petitioner could not be treated to be a member of the service unless he had undergone training for one year and had passed the departmental examination of Naib Tehsildar. Thus, the respondents reiterated their stand that the training period spent by the petitioner could not be taken into consideration for eligibility to the post of H.C.S.(Executive Branch) in the year 1989.
Learned Single Judge examined the controversy and on interpretation of the rules and relying upon a judgment of this Court in Jaipal,Tehsildar V. State of Haryana and another 1982(2) S.L.R.
293,held that the training period spent by the petitioner prior to his posting as Naib Tehsildar could not be counted towards the continuous Government service as required under Rule 7(i)(a)(i) of the Rules.
L.P.A. No.703 of 1996 5
Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated March 7,1996.
Through the present Letters Patent Appeal, the writ petitioner has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
We have heard Shri Jaivir Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anmol Rattan Sidhu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents and have also gone through the record of the case.
Shri Jaivir Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the petitioner was duly selected in a process of selection and was issued an appointment order on May 18,1983 by the competent authority i.e. Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. On that basis, it has been contended that after the aforesaid appointment order the appellant for all intents and purposes was a Government employee and, as such, the period spent by him in employment was to be treated as a continuous Government service in terms of Rule 7(1)(a)(i) of the Rules.
On that basis,learned counsel maintains that the petitioner was to be treated as duly eligible for consideration/appointment to H.C.S.
(Executive Branch) against the vacancies for the year 1989.
L.P.A. No.703 of 1996 6
On the other hand, Shri Anmol Rattan Sidhu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has argued that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and was successful and vide order dated May 18,1983 his candidature was accepted by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. However, the petitioner could not be deemed to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar till the successful completion of his training.
To elaborate the aforesaid arguments, Shri Sidhu has pointed out that under the Rules if a selected candidate fails to qualify the test or has not completed successfully the training required under the Rules, his name could be removed from the list by the Financial Commissioner. On that basis, it has been argued that the petitioner could not be deemed to have been appointed as a Naib Tehsildar with effect from the passing of the order dated May 18,1983 but his service as Naib Tehsildar could only be treckoned with effect from July 25,1984, the date he was appointed as Naib Tehsildar ( Accounts) at Jind.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
In our considered view, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
L.P.A. No.703 of 1996 7
Some observations made by the learned Single Judge while interpreting Standing Order No.12 of the Financial Commissioner may be noticed with advantage:
"Part 'A' of Standing Order No.12 of the Financial Commissioner provides that there will be two classes of Tehsilar candidates; Class 'A' and class 'B'.
Class 'A' is meant for direct candidate, whereas class 'B' is meant for candidate appointed on transfer. This Court in Jaipal's case (supra) in reference to paragraph 4 of the Standing has held that " 'A' Class Tehsildar candidates are required to be instructed in accordance with paragraph 4(iv) (a) instructions Appendix B. While serving as Naib Tehsildars paragraph 4(i)(b) they have to observe instructions contained in Appendix C. Amongst others, such a Tehsildar candidate during this period can be invested with power of a Magistrate 3rd
Class, and Assistant Collector 2nd
Grade, and can be given simple criminal and revenue judicial cases to introduce him the procedure in trying cases but under the general supervision of a Tehsildar and Naib L.P.A. No.703 of 1996 8
Tehsildar, Mutation work disposed of by him is required to be examined by the Tehsildar. His progress, while in such service, is required to be inspected by the Deputy Commissioner or the Revenue Assistant from time to time.paragraph 4(iii) provides:" To enable Class 'A' candidates to fulfil the requirement of two years' service under paragraph 4(i)(b) every such candidates who has undergone revenue training for one year under paragraph 4(i) (a) should be given preference over a Naib-Tehsildar candidate for appointment as to Naib-Tehsildar; he may also at his option be employed as an honorary Naib-Tehsildar for the necessary period. "Thus, it is optional for an 'A' Class candidate to work as an honorary Naib Tehsildar or to work in an officiating capacity and get paid in the minimum of the time scale due from time to time." After a candidate has been trained and has passed the examination prescribed in accordance with parapgrah 4, he is declared to be a qualified candidate for the post of Tehsildar by the Financial Commissioner as provided in paragraph 6. Paragraph 7 L.P.A. No.703 of 1996 9
provides that the name of a Tehsildar candidate in Class A or Class B can be removed by the Financial Commissioner from the list; (a) if he has failed to qualify within the period laid down in paragraph 4; (b) if he has not while officiating as Naib-Tehsildar given indication that he is likely to make a good Tehsildar; (c) if, though qualified, he has no prospect of obtaining an appointment within a reasonable time; (d) for any other sufficient cause."
From the aforesaid observations, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge has duly taken into consideration that if a person duly selected and sent for training fails to qualify the prescribed examination or to successfully complete the training then his name was liable to be removed from the list by the Financial Commissioner. It is, thus, apparent that if the name of a candidate undergoing training could be removed by the Financial Commissioner because of the unsuccessful completion of the training or non-clearance of the examination,then obviously such a person could not be deemed to have been appointed as Naib Tehsildar merely on his selection and consequential acceptance as a trainee candidate. We do not find that the L.P.A. No.703 of 1996 10
observations made by the learned Single Judge suffer from any infirmity in any manner. We further find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is duly supported by the judgment of this court in Jaipal's case (supra).
As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
( Viney Mittal )
August 23,2005 ( H.S. Bedi )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.