SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the Revenue & Disaster Management Department has filled up posts of 'B' Class Tehsildars in excess of posts circulated to be filled up by officials on transfer from other Departments. The service rules governing such appointments are called Haryana Revenue (Group-B) Service Rules 1988 (for short "the Rules") as amended in the year 2000 and as further amended on 13.07.2007 and 04.01.2013. Initially seven posts of 'B' Class Tehsildar were circulated on 09.05.2012 to be filled on the principle of promotion on transfer basis. The circular was issued by the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Revenue & Disaster Management Department to all Commissioners of the State calling names of eligible ASR/Superintendents working in the office of Deputy Commissioners. The selection was from amongst candidates in the category mentioned in Rule 9(1) (b) (iii) of the Rules on recruitment conditions mentioned in Appendix-'B' attached to the Rules. The petitioner was one amongst 21 candidates who appeared for the interview on 14.01.2013 before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Twelve names were recommended for appointment on transfer basis as against the seven posts notified. The respondent-Department accepted 9 persons for appointment vide order dated 14.03.2013. The petitioner is before the Court against his non-appointment. The selected candidates were deputed for revenue training as required by Rule 10(1) read with Appendix-'E' of the 1988 Rules as amended from time to time. The Tehsildar departmental examination as prescribed in the rules are required to be qualified by such of the selected candidates as have not passed the departmental examination already while in service.

(2.) The petitioner inter alia especially assails the appointment by transfer of Bal Krishan and Rattan Singh. Both originally from the office of the Commissioner, Hisar Division Hisar. The rules recognized two modes of appointment other than by way of direct recruitment, by promotion and by transfer. The academic qualifications and the experience required is prescribed in Appendix-'B'. Rule 9 inter alia provides 20% of the posts to be filled by transfer from amongst five categories of posts, two of which are of Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Commissioners' and Deputy Commissioners' office.

(3.) This Court by order dated 27.09.2013 called upon the petitioner to produce a chart comparing inter-se merit between himself, Bal Krishan and Rattan Singh to show how the criteria adopted for the selection has been misapplied in the case of the other two. This was with the view to examine if any undue benefit had been granted to Bal Krishan and Rattan Singh. Chart has been placed through CM No.14435 of 2013 at Annexure P-13. The chart shows marks assigned under different heads of the criteria. The grand total of marks awarded to Bal Krishan is 75 1/2 and Rattan Singh 66 as against 42 awarded to the petitioner. The chart is based on record received under RTI Act, 2005. By wrong calculation of marks, the petitioner reveals in the chart that Bal Krishan ought to have obtained 58 1/2 marks, Rattan Singh 61 and the petitioner 45. On his own showing, the petitioner is far less meritorious than Bal Krishan and Rattan Singh and cannot claim preferential right of appointment by transfer over and above the claim of Bal Krishan and Rattan Singh on merit. The remaining selected candidates have not been brought in dispute at the hearing. Therefore, the case is foreclosed qua them.