RISHI RAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to treat the petitioner eligible under Rule 7(1) of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 (as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 1930 Rules) for selection of candidates for Register A-1 and further treat him fully eligible for appointment to Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) against the vacancies of the year 1989 to be filled in from Register A-1 by counting continuous Govt. service of the petitioner w.e.f. 18.5.1983, i.e. the date of his entry into government service and accordingly to include the name of the petitioner in the list of Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars, to be submitted before the committee headed by Chief Secretary, Haryana in pursuance of circular dated 16.11.1993.

(2.) As per the case set up by the petitioner, Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board vide advertisement No. 8/1981 advertised some posts of Naib Tehsildars for Hisar and Ambala Divisions. Petitioner applied, competed and was selected for the post. Vide order dated 18.5.1993, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar accepted the petitioner and other selected candidates as A- Class Naib Tehsildar candidates and posted him for training in Hisar district. On successful completion of his training period, the Director Land Records, Haryana issued the requisite Efficiency Certificate to the petitioner on 20.6.1984 and as a consequence thereof, the Appointing Authority, i.e. the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar vide order dated 25.7.1984 posted the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar (Accounts) at Jind. Petitioner also successfully completed his probation period of two years on 31.7.1986. It has been averred that before completion of his probation period, petitioner also passed the Naib Tehsildari examination on 14.8.1984. Petitioner appeared for the Tehsildar examination held on 20.5.1985 and successfully passed the same on 21.4.1986 and thus became senior-most eligible Naib Tehsildar in Hisar Division. Petitioner has alleged that he was promoted as Tehsildar on 6.3.1992, even though he was entitled to be promoted as such w.e.f. 4.5.1988 and his claim to this effect is pending consideration before respondent No. 1 in pursuance of directions issued by this Court in a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner. For filling up four posts of HCS (Executive Branch) in the year 1989 from Register A-I, respondent No. 1 issued circular dated 16.11.1993 vide which the names of eligible Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars/District Revenue Officers along with their service-books and ACR filed were called for. The Deputy Commissioner, Hisar on receipt of this circular marked it to all the District Revenue Officers/Tehsildars so that they could fill up the prescribed format and send the same within time. According to the petitioner, when the circular was brought to his notice, he sent his application along with the prescribed proforma vide his memo. No. 2260-TRA dated 3.12.1993. After inviting applications of eligible Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars etc. throughout the State, the same were scrutinised somewhere in June/July, 1994. It is the case of the petitioner that his name is not being considered due to an objection raised by the office of respondent No. 1 to the effect that the petitioner does not possess five years' government service as on 1.1.1989, i.e. the cut-off date. The objection so raised is on the ground that service rendered by the petitioner from 19.5.1983 to 31.7.1984, i.e. the training period cannot be counted towards the requirement of continuous government service under Rule 7(1)(a)(i) of the 1930 Rules. Petitioner has alleged that on coming to know the aforesaid objection, he represented to respondent No. 1 through proper channel and requested for treating him fully eligible for the four posts of HCS (Executive Branch) of the year 1989. Petitioner has further alleged that his representation was rejected, but the formal order of rejection has not been conveyed to him, He, thus, in the petition has submitted that the action of respondent No. 1 in not treating him eligible for appointment to HSC (Executive Branch) against the vacancies of the year 1989 to be filled in from Register A-1 by counting the continuous government service is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for the reason that he possessed five years' continuous government service as on 1-7-1989 in terms of 1930 Rules.

(3.) In answer to the allegations made in the writ' petition, respondent No. 1 in its written statement has stated that upon his acceptance as A-Class Naib Tehsildar candidate by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, the petitioner was put to one year's revenue training to work as Patwari/Kanungo and on completion of this one year's training he was issued the efficiency certificate by the Director, Land Records, Haryana on 20-6-1984. It has been averred that an accepted candidate does not become the member of service unless he has undergone training for one year and has passed the departmental examination of Naib Tehsildar. The petitioner was accepted as A-Class Naib Tehsildar candidate on 18-5-1983 and was put under training for one year. He was allowed first increment in the scale of Rs. 700-1250 on 1-8-1985 after undergoing training and passing the departmental examination. It has further been averred that since the petitioner did not complete five years' service as on 1-1-1989, he was not entitled to be recommended for consideration to H.C.S. Thus, according to the respondents, the training period of the petitioner as Patwari/Kanungo i.e. from 19-5-1983 to 25-7-1984 is not be taken into consideration for the eligibility to the post of HCS (Executive Branch) for the year 1989 as he was not a member of the service at that time.