VIRENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Haryana Revenue (Group B) Service Rules, 1988 (for short "the Rules") as amended in 2007 prescribes inter alia revenue training as specified in Appendix 'E' & 'H' of the Rules for those Tahsildars and Naib Tahsildars who are appointed by direct recruitment. The syllabus of the departmental examination for Tahsildars and Naib Tahsildars is contained in Appendix 'F' and 'I' respectively appended to the rules. The petitioner is a Kanungo. He was promoted to the post on 11.01.2010. Appendix 'B' of the Rules with reference to Rule 7 thereof prescribes the mode of recruitment to the post of Naib Tahsildar through direct recruitment or by promotion or by transfer. For filling up the post of Naib Tehsildar by promotion, the rule is as follows:

(2.) MR . Dadwal relies on the memo dated 11.08.1997, Mark 'B' produced at the time of hearing which reads as follows:

(3.) HE also relies on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No. 9573 of 1994, Som Nath v. State of Haryana decided on 04.06.1999 to contend that a departmental test is necessary for promotees as well since such right is given on completion of regular 5 years of service on the lower post. A reading of the judgment discloses altogether different fact situation inasmuch as the petitioner Som Nath was serving in the revenue department and was appointed to service prior to reorganization of States i.e. prior to 01.11.1966 and for this reason this Court took the view that Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 provides only for protection of service conditions as were available to the serving employees as on 01.11.1966. This right has been conferred and approved only on coming into force of the 1988 Rules and the same was not available to the petitioner therein immediately before the appointed day. In the main, it was held that the State Government can change the terms and conditions of promotion and Section 82(6) has no application to such case. The petitioner was appointed to service in 1984 and therefore will remain subject to the 1988 Rules and as further amended in 2007. The petitioner can derive no mileage from Som Nath case which is clearly distinguishable on facts.