A P MANCHANDA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were promoted under Rule 6 (1 of the Haryana Service of. Engineers, Class II, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). Since they belonged to the Haryana Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) they were governed by source 4 of the said rules. Rule 7 (3 (ii) is the other relevant rule which we must notice. It lays down the qualifications and says that no person shall be appointed from source 4 under Rule 6 (1 unless he possesses the educational qualification set out therein and has the required experience. It further provides that he will have to pass the departmental examination within three years of such promotion otherwise he will be reverted to his original post and his seniority will be determined from the date of his passing the examination. The State contends that the appellants failed to pass the examination within three years as required by the said provision and, therefore, they were liable to be reverted. But it must be realised that ordinarily every year examinations were held twice and, therefore, the appellants would have had six chances to clear the examination within the period of three years. The appellants contend that in the year 1980 the examination ordinarily to be held in the month of November, was not held and it was held as late as August 1982 which examination the appellants successfully cleared. The word 'ordinarily' would indicate that it was not compulsory on the part of the State to hold the examination twice in a year but it must be realised that the appellants have passed the examination in August 1982 whereas they were reverted in October 1982 i. e. after they had cleared the examination. In that view of the matter there was no question of reverting them since they had qualified for promotion to the next higher post even on the terms of Rule 6 (1) , source 4, read with Rule 7 (3 (ii) of the rules. Under the orders of the court their reversion was stayed. It is an admitted position that they are continuing to serve in the promotion post. We are, therefore, of the opinion since they had passed the examination in August 1982 and since the rules do not say that if they do not clear the examination within three years they will not be entitled to promotion for all times even if they clear the examination subsequently, they became ripe for promotion on clearing the examination held in August 1982 and, therefore, there was no need to revert them and in any case no such need now survives. It is another matter that under Rule 7 (3 (ii) the question of seniority may have to be fixed in accordance with that rule but that is not an issue before us.

(2.) In the result the appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.