RAM DUTT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order. The petitioner was working as a substantive Naib Tehsildar (Revenue) in the erstwhile State of Pepsu in 1954. Thereafter, on 9-11-1954, he was appointed as Consolidation Officer. On the integration of Pepsu with Punjab, he was on 1-11-1956, integrated as consolidation Officer in the new State of Punjab (copy of the order Annexure 'a' ). Since 9-11-1954 the petitioner has been continuously working as Consolidastion officer and has completed more than 10 years' service on that post. On 26-5 1964, the Governor of Punjab passed an order that all Consolidation Officers, who had worked as such for ten years or more, be confirmed straightway against the posts held by them (copy of the circular order is Annexure 'b' to the writ petition ). Subsequently, on 29-3-1966, the Government of Punjab issued another order (copy Annexure 'c' to the writ petition) intimating the director of Consolidation that those employees who had completed ten years' continuous service on a particular post on or before 31-3-1966 will be eligible for confirmation. The director was further ordered to work out immediately the number of posts to be sanctioned on a permanent basis. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, the punjab government on 14-10-1966, confirmed eight Consolidation Officers with effect from 31-3-1966 against eight out of seventeen permanent posts sanctioned by it. These confirmations also included persons junior to the petitioner. In the case of the petitioner, however, it was decided that his work should be watched for one year more before he was to be considered for confirmation (copy of the order is Annexure 'd' to the writ petition ). On 1-11-1966, that is, on the reorganisation of Punjab, the petitioners was provisionally allocated to the State of Haryana. The petitioner represented against his allocation, but he has not been apprised of the result of that representation so far. On 17-8-1967, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director, consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, praying that since a year had already elapsed he should be considered for confirmation as Consolidation Officer. Instead of accepting that representation, the petitioner has been reverted to his parent department as Naib Tehsildar by an order, dated 5-12-1967 (copy Annexure 'r-2' to the returned ).

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 14-10-1966 (copy annexure 'd' to the writ petition), and the order dated 5-12-1967 (copy Annexure 'r-2' to the return) on the following grounds:-

(3.) RESPONDENT 1 and 2 in their return have mainly admitted the factual position. In reply to paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is submitted that the case of the petitioner relating to his confirmation as Consolidation Officer was considered and it was decided to take up his case for confirmation after the finalisation of the provisional allocation by the Government of India. It is added that the consolidation Department was to be wound up with effect from 1-4-1968 and that was why the petitioner was reverted to his parent Department vide orders dated 5-12-1967 (copy Annexure 'r-2' ). It was denied that nay discriminatory treatment was meted out to the petitioner. It was also denied that any officer junior to the petitioner was confirmed as Consolidation Officer by the State of Haryana after 111-1966. It was further denied that under Rule 6 of the Rules the petitioner was entitled to automatic confirmation on the expiry of his period of probation. It was asserted that he was still an officiating Consolidation Officer. It was also maintained that the impugned orders were perfectly legal and justified in the circumstances when the whole Consolidation Department was being wound up. In the supplementary return the respondents stated that the petitioner was ignored for promotion for a year or so on account of his bad record. In reply to amended paras 11-A and 11-B of the petition, the respondents denied that all the Consolidation Officers were appointed as Tahsildars (Settlement) and asserted that the petitioner had no legal or vested right to be appointed as Tahsildar (Settlement ).