HARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector, Co -operative Societies vide order dated 11.4.1975, and he joined his duties on 15.4.1975. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Registrar, vide order dated 4.5.2001 (Annexure P -2). The petitioner is governed by the Punjab State Co -operative Service Class II Rules, 1958. According to Rule 9(b) every member of the service, shall unless exempted by the Government, pass by the higher standard the departmental examination, in accounts, within a period of two years, which is further extendable by the Government. It was stated that under Rule 13 of the said Rules, relaxation can be given, in case of woman candidates, and under Rule 17, the Government is vested with the general power, to relax the operation of any of the Rules, in case the same causes, hardship, in any particular case. It was further stated that the petitioner met with an accident, and suffered multiple injuries, on his body. Resultantly, his disability was more than 40%. In this respect, a certificate dated 20.3.2001 (Annexure P -3) was issued by the office of the Civil Surgeon, Patiala. It was further stated that the petitioner having suffered injuries, he being a natural left hander, was unable to undertake the departmental examination, as his hand was very slow, in writing, and the grip was also very weak. The petitioner was given one more year, by extending the period for passing the departmental examination, in accounts. Since the petitioner could not write better and appeal in the examination, even after the extended period, he moved an application on 27.5.2004 to the Registrar Co -operative Societies, Punjab, seeking exemption from passing the aforesaid examination. The Finance and Co -operation Minister, Punjab, approved the request of the petitioner, taking into consideration his record and the medical report, vide order dated 27.5.2004. Since the concerned Minister approved the request, the formal order was to be passed by respondent No. 3, in this regard. After the approval was granted by the Government, and the Minister In charge, the petitioner was never heard by the concerned authorities, though he was expecting the formal orders, regarding exemption. It was further stated that without granting any opportunity of hearing, and without looking into the facts of the case of the petitioner, as also the medical certificate, produced by him, he was reverted vide order dated 29.7.2004 (Annexure P -7). It was further stated that one Darshan Singh, who was promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar, from the post of Inspector on 29.5.2001, also suffered from an ailment and by relaxing the operation of Rules, he was exempted from passing the departmental examination. One more officer, in the name of Darshan Singh was also granted exemption from passing the departmental examination. It was further stated that the order of reversion of the petitioner, was illegal, un -constitutional and in violation of the principles of natural justice, that the respondents adopted a policy of pick and choose, by interpreting Rule 17 of the Rules ibid, and thereby the petitioner was discriminated vis -a -vis the similarly situated persons. Accordingly, the instant petition, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, setting aside the order dated 29.7.2004 (Annexure P -7) was filed.

(2.) THE respondents, in their written statement, admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector. It was also admitted that he was promoted as Assistant Registrar. It was stated that the petitioner was governed by the Punjab State Co -operative Service Class II Rules, 1958, and the Punjab Civil services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules 1994. It was stated that an application dated 24.2.2003 was submitted by the petitioner to the respondents seeking exemption from passing the departmental examination on medical grounds. Along with this application, he submitted a medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Patiala, showing his disability to the extent of 45%. It was further stated that the petitioner, according to the rules was required to pass the departmental examination, in accounts, with higher standard, within two years, from the date of his promotion, but he failed to do so. He was given six chances to appear in the departmental examination. He appeared in the departmental examination held in the months of April, 2001, July, 2001 and April, 2002 and earned 15, 22 and 42 marks respectively, and thus, could not pass the same with higher standard. In the first instance, he tried to pass the examination, hut when he could not pass the same, he submitted an application dated 24.2.2003 referred to above, seeking exemption from passing the same. The application was considered by respondent No. 2, and his probation period was extended for one year I.e., upto 6.5.2004 vide order dated 22.4.2003. It was further stated that, on examination of the matter it was found that the post of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, is important, as he is In -charge of the Cooperative Societies, in the Sub -Division, and has to supervise the same, besides presiding over the Court work. In this view of the matter, the application for exemption from passing the examination, aforesaid, was rejected by the Cooperative Minister and the decision, in that regard, was duly conveyed to him vide letter dated 21.8.2003(Annexure R. -1 true translation where of is RT/1). The petitioner again submitted an application to respondent No. 3, on which the Finance Minister passed the orders on 27.5.2004, that his request be acceded to. Since, the competent authority was respondent No. 2, his request was sent to him. After examining the request of the petitioner, by respondent No. 2, the matter was referred to the Minister In -charge for final orders. The Minister passed an order dated 4.10.2004 to the effect, that in the light of the provisions of the Service Rules, the petitioner could not be allowed exemption. However, on the basis of fresh medical certificate dated 29.8.2004 submitted by the petitioner, he was given one more additional chance, to pass the departmental examination, in accounts. This decision was duly conveyed to him, vide order dated 18.10.2004.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.