SATYAVIR KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had acquired one year diploma of Stock Assistant from Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar in July, 1984. He served as Live Stock Development Assistant on ad hoc basis at Haryana Co-operative Milk Union, Kurukshetra. When he was appointed on ad hoc basis, the diploma of the petitioner was recognised as the prescribed qualification for the post. In 1986, petitioner joined the Indian Air Force. He is still serving the Air Force. On 29.7.1999, the statutory service rules were amended and the posts or Veterinary Compounder and Stock Assistants were merged. A new post of Veterinary Live Stock Development Assistant was created. The qualification for recruitment on the aforesaid post is two years diploma in Veterinary Live Stock Development Assistant course. On the basis of the aforesaid qualification on 31.8.2004, respondent No. 2 published an advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of V.L.D.A. The petitioner submitted the application which has been rejected on the ground that he does not possess the necessary qualification. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to be considered for appointment on the basis of the qualification possessed by him as at the time when the petitioner acquired the qualification, he would have been eligible to apply for the posts or Veterinary Compounder and Stock Assistant. These posts have been merged to create the post of V.L.D.A. The respondents cannot therefore prescribe the qualification of a diploma which is of two years duration.

(2.) The respondents have filed a written statement. It is stated that the qualification has been prescribed in column 3(ii) of the item No. 27 of Appendix B of the Haryana Veterinary Headquarter & Field (Group-C) Service Rules, 1999. Since the petitioner does not possess the qualification under the aforesaid rules which have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered. Mr. Rathi submits that once qualifications have been prescribed under the statutory service rules, any appointment made in derogation thereof would be void and would also be open to challenge in the Courts. The respondents have strictly complied with the statutory service rules and found that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for the post.

(3.) Having considered the entire matter at length, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that when qualifications are prescribed in the statutory service rules, the appointments have to be made by strictly adhering to the rules. Any appointments which have been de hors the statutory rules, would be void and non-est. For the view, we find support from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distt. Collector & Chairman v. M.T. Sundari Devi, 1990 4 SLR 237. In that judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly held as follows :-