DALIP PANWAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of Mr. A.K. Gupta, name of respondent No.4 is deleted from the array of the respondents. Petitioner was appointed as regular Patwari on 28.2.1991. He was accepted as Kanungo candidate on 23.8.1991. His candidature was cancelled by the District Collector, Sirmaur on 18.6.1992. He assailed order dated 18.6.1992 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1006/1995. The same was directed to be treated as representation to the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla with a direction to him to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes decide the same on merits in accordance with law within a period of three months. The Divisional Commissioner decided the representation on 30.8.1995. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was accepted as Kanungo Candidate on 23.8.1991. The candidature of the petitioner was cancelled as Kanungo since he had not completed three years in field service, which was prerequisite condition for accepting him as Kanungo Candidate, as per the provisions of the Land Records Manual. He had only 1 years field service. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 18.6.1992 was set aside by the Divisional Commissioner, as noticed above, on 30.8.1995. The petitioner was permitted to complete the remaining period in field. In these circumstances, he completed three years field service only in the month of October, 1996. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 23.10.1996 to consider the name of the petitioner. His name was recommended at Sr. No. 5 of the panel. According to the reply, petitioner was liable to be promoted as and when the vacancy became available. In these circumstances the petitioner cannot be directed to be considered for promotion from the date he was accepted as Kanungo Candidate, i.e. 23.8.1991. He had only put in three years in field, as required under the provisions of the Land Records Manual, in the month of October, 1996, as noticed above. The three years' field service is sine qua non for accepting the petitioner as Kanungo Candidate.

(3.) Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.