K VENKATAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a local candidate for the post of a II Division Clerk by the Director of Public Instruction in Mysore, Bangalore, on 8-8-1963 and posted to the office of the Medical Inspector of Schools. In the year 1966, the Governor of Mysore, in exercise of the power conferred on him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, promulgated what are called the Mysore State Civil Service (Recruitment of Local candidates to class III posts) Rule 1966 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') . Rule 3 of the Rules provides that the local candidates who possess the qualifications specified in sub-rule (2) shall be appointed as regular candidates by the appointing authority. By a Memo dated 13-11-1968 issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was informed that his-services were regularised under the Rules. On 20-12-1967, the Government passed an order directing that such of the local candidates who were Graduate II Division Clerks or Typists on 1-4-1962 or who became graduates subsequently on appointment regularly as per relevant rules of recruitment etc., shall be given certain increments. On 1-2-1969, the 2nd respondent "passed an order allowing two increments with effect from 13-11-1968 to the petitioner. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the date of his regularisation shall be deemed to have taken effect from the date of his first appointment on 8-8-1963 or in the alternative from 17-8-1966, the date of the coming into force of the Rules. He further prays for declaration that he is entitled to four increments from the date of his first appointment on 8-8-1963 or atleast from 17-8-1966.

(2.) The question that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether the date of the appointment of a local candidate whose services are regularised under the Rules shall be deemed to have taken effect from a date earlier to the date of his appointment made under Rule 3. There is no express provision made under the Rules to the effect that the regularisation shall take effect from the date of the appointment as a local candidate or the date of the coming into force of the Rules. There is sufficient indication in the Rules to repel the contention of the petitioner. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 provides that the services of local candidates who possess the requisite qualifications be regularised by the appointing authorities concerned. Therefore, a specific order by the appointing authority regularising the appointment under R. 3 is required. R. 5 which provides for fixation of initial pay and reckoning of service for purposes of leave, increment etc., reads thus:

(3.) If the date of regularisation under R. 3 has to be deemed as the date of appointment as local candidate or the date of the Rules, then it was unnecessary to state in Rule 5 that the service rendered by a person as a local candidate until the date of his appointment under the Rules shall count for purposes of leave, increment and pension in the same manner and to the same extent and subject to the same conditions applicable to a temporary Government servant. If the intention of the Rules were that the appointment by way of a regularisation of service shall take effect from the date of coming into force of the Rules, then in R.5 it would have been stated that the service rendered by a person as a local candidate until the date of the coming into force of the Rules shall count for purposes of leave, increment and pension etc,