SAJJAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while posted as Kanungo has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorari for quashing the orders Annexure P-8 whereby the private respondent No. 3 selected as Kanungo, P-11 whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected by Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, P-18 whereby the final seniority list of the Kanungo of District Bhiwani was issued and P-19 whereby the Kanungos were-confirmed in district Bhiwani.

(2.) The case came up for hearing on 3.1.1994, when it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had superannuated on 31.10.1989 on attaining the age of 58 years and similarly the respondents except No. 8 and 13 have also retired from service.

(3.) In order to sort out the matter, it will be worthwhile to appreciate the facts as brought out by the petitioner, Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner having been selected was appointed as Patwari on June 22, 1953 in Hissar District. He was confirmed as such on December 22, 1962. The petitioner, on the basis of good satisfactory service record as also his seniority, was further promoted alongwith 15 other Patwaris as Kanungo vide order dated June 18, 1976 copy of which is Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The officials mentioned at Sr. No. 1,3,4,6 to 8 and 10 to 16, who were promoted in pursuance of order, Annexure P-l, were reverted to their original post of Patwari on different dates, whereas the petitioner continued to work as Kanungo till filing of the present writ petition. In February, 1980, regular posts of Kanungo became available in the Department. As a result, the petitioner was appointed by the Collector, Bhiwani District, Bhiwani, respondent No.3, against one of the regular posts. Copy of the order whereby the petitioner was appointed against one of the regular posts in Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, meaning thereby he was made regular. All these facts have not been controverted by the respondents in any manner.