RAJINDER SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that appointment of respondent No. 4 vide the letter dated 26.4.1996 is illegal, bad in law, against the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. The suit filed by the appellant has been decreed by the trial court by its judgment dated 7.3.2000. Two appeals were filed against the aforesaid judgment by State of Haryana and respondent No. 4 in the Court of Dewan Chand, Addl. District Judge, Hisar. Both the appeals have been allowed by the judgment dated 23.12.2000 and the suit filed by the appellant has been dismissed by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) The substantial question of law which arises for the consideration of this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case is as follows :-

(3.) At the relevant time, both the appellant and respondent No. 4 were working as ploughman under the Mechanical Engineer, G.L.F., Hisar. Both of them possessed a valid driving licence for driving light vehicles. The appellant is admittedly senior to respondent No. 4, on the class IV post. The appellant joined service in January, 1990. Respondent No. 4 joined service in July, 1990. Both the appellant and respondent No. 4 have passed 7th standard. The appellant had made an application for appointment as Driver on 10.8.1995. This application is Ex.P-7 on the file of the trial Court. This was returned to the appellant through letter, Ex.P-8 with the observation that he is not eligible for the post of driver as he has not passed middle standard examination with Hindi. It is not disputed that even respondent No. 4 has not passed the middle standard examination with Hindi. He has also studied upto the 7th Standard. I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court came to the correct conclusion that there has been violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The claim of the senior could not have been ignored at the time when respondent No. 4 was considered and appointed. The lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal against the judgment of the trial Court only on the ground that the appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post of driver had been upheld by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6887 of 1996 decided on 27.7.1996. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment, however, shows that the same was given on the basis of concession. It is observed that "it is not disputed that the petitioners were middle pass and held a driving licence". It has already been noticed above that both the appellant as well as respondent No. 4 had studied only upto the 7th standard. Therefore, no distinction could have been made between the case of the appellant and respondent No. 4. In fact, appellant being admittedly senior to respondent No. 4 had to be considered for appointment on the post of driver prior to respondent No. 4. The trial Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the order dated 26.4.1996 is illegal.