JASMIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history. A proclamation was issued for appointing a new Chowkidar of Village Mado Haldari, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar, in place of deceased Kesho Ram, Chowkidar, on 21/9/2011. The last date for receipt of application was within 30 days of such proclamation, so it could be presumed that the last date would be 20/10/2011. On the said date, the Rules applicable were Punjab Chowkidara Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as '1965 Rules'). The candidates, who had applied for the said post, were, therefore, required to be considered for appointment to the post of Chowkidar as per the said prevalent Rules. Respondent No.4-Kharati Lal was initially appointed as Chowkidar by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bilaspur, on 14/5/2012, upon which an appeal was preferred by Jasmit, petitioner herein, which was allowed on 19/9/2012 by the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar. Kharati Lal thereafter filed Appellate Authority was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, for fresh decision. Letter Patents Appeal No.239 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27/5/2014. It is in pursuance thereto and in the light of the remand order that the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, was to pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations of the learned Single Judge in his judgment dtd. 22/1/2014, according to which order dtd. 17/12/2014 (Annexure P-6) has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, wherein instead of considering the claims of the candidates as per the 1965 Rules, he has proceeded to consider the claim of the applicants as per the Haryana Chowkidara (Watchman) Rules, 2011, which had come into effect on amendment as notified on 11/1/2013. As per the said amended Rules, respondent No.4 has been appointed the Chowkidar of the village, leading to the filing of the writ petition challenging the said order.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the candidatures had to be considered of the applicants as per the 1965 Rules as per the observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court and in any case, as per the settled principles, the old Rules would be applicable as the 2011 Rules had not come into existence even prior to the initial appointment as Chowkidar of the candidates. His further contention is that the case was remanded primarily by this Court on the plea of the private respondent that three Lambardars have recommended the appointment of the petitioner when there were only two Lambardars in the village, where the Chowkidar was to be appointed to verify the said factual aspect, the matter was actually remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, which has not been dealt with by the said authority, but considered the claim of the candidates under the amended Rules, which in any case would not be applicable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the private respondents has reiterated the assertion which was taken by the petitioner in the writ petition, which was preferred by asserting that the respondent has been found to be more meritorious on the basis of the qualifications and has been rightly appointed.