JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A number of persons were confirmed as Zilledars in the P.W.D. (Irrigation Department) of the State of Haryana by an order of April 10,1987. In paragraph 2 of this order it was observed that the record of certaa Zilledars had not been found to be upto the mark of 50% Good Reports and as such, they had not been considered fit for permanent appointment in the services. Name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 41 in this order. He is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in declaring him unsuitable for confirmation. The order has been challenged primarily on two grounds. Firstly, it has been averred that even though the confirmation has been ordered on April 10,1987 the consideration has been confined to the record up to the year 1982. Secondly, it has been contended that in case of the petitioner, even the record after the year 1982 must be considered. In fact the last record taken into consideration was for the year 1980. On these premises, primarily this order has been challenged before me.

(2.) As there were certain controversies between the parties with regard to the report for the year 1975-76 vide my order dated July 31, 1991 had directed the respondents to produce the petitioner's personal file as also the file relating to the consideration of his claim for confirmation. In spite of the fact that more than 3 months have elapsed, the record has not been produced.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it has been mentioned that the case of confirmation of Zilledars was taken up in the year 1985 and accordingly all the subordinate offices in the field were requested to send the A.C.R. files of Zilledars for the period upto 1982. It has been further mentioned that the petitioner had passed the Departmental Revenue Examination in April, 1980. A summary of his record from 1.4.1970 to 313.1980 has also been given. It has been mentioned that since the petitioner had not earned 50% Good reports during the last 10 years, he has rightly been found unsuitable for confirmation. The petitioner has filed a detailed replication. The claim made on behalf of the respondents has been controverted. However, for the decision of the present writ petition, it is not necessary for me to go into the dispute between the parties on the factual position