ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a member of Schedule Caste and selected on the post of Taxation Inspector challenges by way of present Writ Petition order dated September 5, 1989 Annexure P3 passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana vide which his services were terminated on the ground that he could not qualify the departmental examination in three years even though the period of two years is provided under the Rules. Brief facts that have necessitated the petitioner to come to this Court need be noticed first.

(2.) On the recommendation of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, petitioner was appointed and posted as Taxation Inspector on temporary basis in the grade of Rs. 600-1100/- plus usual allowances as admissible to Haryana Government employees from time to time. His appointment was to be regulated by the Haryana Excise and taxation Inspectorate (State Service Class III) Services Rules 1969 (hereinafter to be as Rules of 1969). As per Rule 12 of the Rules of 1969, a person appointed to the service has to remain on probation for a period of two years which may be extended for one year by the appointing authority. Rule 14 of the Rules aforesaid prescribes that the persons appointed to the service shall pass the departmental examination within two years from the date of their appointment which period may be extended by the appointing authority ior another onr year. Rule 14 runs as follows:-

(3.) Regulations for conducting departmental examination are provided in Appendix 'E' to the Rules and as per Regulation (I), the departmental examination is required to be held twice a year in the third week of February and 1st week of August or on other such dates as are notified by the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation. As per Regulation (II), the names of the officers who intend to sk in the examination together with the subjects in which they shall be examined have to be forwarded to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana before first of January and 15th August each year or within one month after the publication of results of the last examination whichever is later. The names have to be forwarded by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the Division. Further, as per Regulations, reference of which has been given above, all Taxation Inspectors are required to pass atleast five subjects out of seven prescribed in the Appendix in a total of six chances which are provided to them under Rule 14 read with Regulations contained in Appendix 'A. Petitioner applied for permission to take the examination which was to be held in November 1986. His name was forwarded and in the examination, the petitioner passed in two subjects namely Law of Crimes and Language of Business. In the next examination which was held in April 1987 the petitioner applied for an opportunity to take the examination but as per his case his name was not forwarded to respondent No. 2 and, therefore, he was denied the chance of taking that examination. The name of petitioner was forwarded for examination held in November 1987 but in the said examination, the petitioner failed to pass in any other subject. In April 1988 the petitioner was again permitted to take the said examination and he passed the subject of Sales Tax Law. In the next examination of November 1988 the petitioner could not pass in any other subject. However, in April 1989 he passed the subject of Allied Taxes. In the manner aforesaid, the petitioner cleared four subjects in the five chances that were made available to him. When the petitioner learnt that a letter has been written so as not to retain him in service after September 28,1989, he filed this petition in this Court.