DR RAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 7449 and 9690 of 2001 as the common question of law and facts are involved. The petitioner(s) have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders passed by the respondent State of Punjab removing them from service from the post of Veterinary Officer on the ground that they failed to pass the departmental examination within the stipulated period of 2-1/2 years.

(2.) The facts may first be noticed. Dr. Ravinder Singh (petitioner in CWP No. 7449 of 2001) and Dr. Raminder Pal Singh (petitioner in CWP No. 9690 of 2001) were appointed as Veterinary Officer in the respondent State of Punjab vide appointment letters dated 4.9.1997 and 25.1.1995 respectively. In para 2 of their appointment letters it was mentioned that their services were to be governed by the rules known as 'the Punjab Animal Husbandry (Class-I) Service Rules, 1996 (for brevity, 'the 1996 Departmental Rules') and they would be on probation for a period of two years in the first instance. These rules have been made specifically applicable to the employees working in the Animal Husbandry Department. The rules have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

(3.) Rule 6 of the 1996 Departmental Rules deals with 'departmental examination'. Sub-rule(1) of Rule 6 prescribes that every member of the Service is required to qualify the papers as specified by the Government from time to time within a period of two years and six months from the date of appointment, unless he has already done so. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 entails that if any person fails to qualify the departmental examination within the stipulated period, he would not earn his future grade increments till he passes it. After passing the departmental examination the increments would be released retrospectively. However, as per the proviso to sub-rule (2) he would not be entitled to get arrears of the released grade increments for the period during which he could not qualify the examination. It is further relevant to mention that by virtue of Rule 7 of the 1996 Departmental Rules, the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (for brevity, 'the 1994 General Rules') have been mutatis mutandis made applicable to the members of the service in respect of the matters which are not specifically provided in the 1996 Departmental Rules. These rules have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution with the object of filling up the gaps left in the specific rules applicable to various employees working in different departments. Rule 7, therefore, would apply to the issues which are not covered by the specific rules.