SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 22.3.2006 (P-4) passed by the Chief Secretary of the respondent-State reverting the petitioner from HCS (Executive Branch) to his substantive post of Block Development & Panchayat Officer.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Block Development & Panchayat Officer when his name was considered for appointment to HCS (Executive Branch) through Register 'C'. The petitioner was found suitable and was appointed in accordance with the rules known as Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 (for brevity 'the Rules') (as applicable to the State of Haryana). According to Rule 21 of the Rules, the petitioner was required to pass higher standard departmental examination within a period of two years. The departmental examination was held in December 2006, June 2004, December 2004 and May - June 2005. The petitioner was able to pass Group-D Hindi subject with higher standard in the examination held in December, 2003. He has also passed Group C-II Local Funds Paper with higher standard in the examination held in June, 2004 and Group-A Criminal Law, Group-A-II Civil Law, Group-B Revenue Law with higher standard in the examination held in May-June, 2005. In other words, the petitioner has passed all papers in required higher standard except Group-CI Financial Rules which he had passed with lower standard. According to the rules, a candidate belonging to HCS has to pass Group-CI Financial Rules also in higher standard. As the period of two years was over, the petitioner made a request that he may be permitted to appear in the examination which was to be held in January, 2006 in respect of the Financial Rules paper. The petitioner was not allowed to appear.

(3.) On 24.1.2006 the petitioner was issued a show cause notice (P-2) proposing his reversion to the post of Block Development & Panchayat Officer. The petitioner duly replied the show cause notice on 14.2.2006 (P-3). However, the Chief Secretary found the explanation unsatisfactory and ordered the reversion of the petitioner by holding that the departmental examination was required to be passed within total four chances which had already been availed of by the petitioner. The operative part of the order reads as under: