LAWS(P&H)-1975-2-28

LAKHMIRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

Decided On February 13, 1975
LAKHMIRA SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB ETC Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited as a Revenue Patwari on February 11, 1942, and was confirmed as such on July 6, 1944. He was appointed as officiating Kanungo with effect from April 26, 1948, and was confirmed as Mahal Kanungo with effect from May 11, 1966. He was promoted as Assistant Consolidation Officer with effect from March 31, 1959, and worked as such till September 30, 1965, on which date he was reverted as Kanungo Consolidation. He was again appointed as officiating Naib Tehsildar on ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement with effect from December 10, 1965 which post he has been holding since then. He has already passed the departmental examination prescribed for the posts of Kanungos and Naib Tahsildars. The recruitment to the post of Naib Tahsildar is made under the Punjab Tehsildari Rules, 1932 . Rule 5 of the said rules, insofar as it is relevant, reads as under :-

(2.) It is not necessary to set out the names. Suffice it to say that the list consisted of 73 persons, although names against certain vacancies reserved for 'B' Class candidates were not mentioned. This list shows that alternately one 'A' Class and one 'B' Class candidate was recruited. The petitioner's name did not figure in the list. He, therefore, filed the present petition challenging the selection made by the Commissioner on the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee.

(3.) The Commissioner, Jullundur Division, has filed his affidavit by way of return to the writ petition. Respondent 5, one of the selected candidates, has also filed his affidavit, but the other respondents have not chosen to appear. Respondents 3 to 27 are the affected Naib Tehsildar 'B' Class candidates who have been selected by the Commissioner. The petitioner is not concerned with the selection of 'A' Class Naib Tehsildars and, therefore, he has not made them respondents to the writ petition. This order will not affect them and will affect only respondents 3 to 27 to this writ petition.