LAWS(P&H)-1998-2-202

JAGDISH SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Decided On February 24, 1998
JAGDISH SINGH Appellant
V/S
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a member of the ministerial establishment in the Electricity Board be confirmed prior to the date of passing the departmental examination as prescribed under the rules ? This is the basic issue that arises for consideration in these three Letters Patent Appeals. Counsel for the parties referred to the facts in L.P.A. No. 192 of 1993. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The appellant had joined service in the Punjab State Electricity Board as an Upper Division Clerk on December 31, 1965. He passed the departmental examination on December 18, 1970. Vide order dated February 8, 1974, the appellant was confirmed as an Upper Division Clerk with effect from May 10, 1970. However, on the mistake being detected, a show cause notice dated October 18, 1985 was issued to him. It was pointed out that he could not have been confirmed with effect from a date prior to that on which he had passed the departmental examination. The appellant submitted his reply. Ultimately, vide order dated July 10, 1986, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition, the appellant's date of confirmation was changed from May 10, 1970 to December 19, 1970. The inter se seniority of the Upper Division Clerks was also determined on this basis and circulated vide letter dated March 17, 1987. Since the appellant as well as the private respondents had been promoted as Assistants, the seniority even in the rank of Assistant was determined on that basis. The appellant represented. Having failed to get any relief, he filed a writ petition with the prayer that the seniority list circulated vide letter dated March 17, 1987, a copy of which was produced as Annexure P.4 with the writ petition, be quashed and the responders be directed to restore his original position.

(3.) The learned Single Judge considered and interpreted the provisions of the rules. Since the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners - the present appellants - were not accepted, they have filed these three appeals.