DEVINDER SINGH KALTA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that admittedly, the Petitioner was selected as a Kanungo candidate vide Office Order dated January 23, 1984. It is averred that he was placed at Sr. No. 7 in seniority but two persons who were above him did not join and one selected candidate had expired, therefore, the Petitioner was assigned serial number 4 in the select list. It is ventilated that to his utter surprise, he was shown at Sr. No. 13 in the seniority list issued on September 3, issued on September 3, 1988, wrongly and illegally. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the said action, Petitioner made a representation, Annexure-PB dated November 11, 1988, to Respondent No. 2. When the Respondent No. 2 did not decide the representation despite reminder, the Petitioner was constrained to file O.A. No. 572 of 1989, Annexure-PC, before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) The Respondents had offered strong resistance to the Original Application, aforesaid and according to them, the inter-se seniority list of the Petitioner and all other private Respondents was drawn after completing the requisite training/qualifying Kanungo Examination and obtaining efficiency certificate in accordance with the provisions laid down in para 2.11 of Chapter-2 of H.P. Land Records Manual, after final acceptance as Kanungo candidates of the District. It was also pleaded that the seniority list circulated, at the time of this selection to undergo the training, was only for the purpose of tentative selection and not for final acceptance as Kanungo Candidates and further, that in para 8 of the provisional selection order, Annexure-R-2, it was made crystal clear that the inter-se seniority of the candidates would be fixed on the basis of their merit and satisfactory performance of their duties during the training. It was also the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner was to obtain minimum 180 marks out of 300 marks but he could only obtain 179 marks and was declared qualified by giving him one grace mark, as is evident from Annexure-R-1. Further that the seniority list, of the direct Kanungo candidates for appointment as Kanungo, was drawn in accordance with the relevant rules, after completion of training/qualifying the Kanungo examination and obtaining efficiency certificate from the Director of Land Records, as aforesaid.

(3.) The Respondent No. 3 in his separate reply additionally contended that the inter se seniority was required to be fixed on merit basis after satisfactory performance of their duties by such candidates. It is alleged that the stand taken by Petitioner was fully misconceived. Further, the determination of the relative seniority in respect of the direct recruits based upon the notification dated July 27, 1972 is also wrong as these instructions have been changed from time to time. Therefore, the seniority was required to be determined on the basis of the appointment order. The said Respondent also contended that he had obtained 215 marks out of 300 and he was better placed than the Petitioner. Since the inter-se seniority was not to be determined on the basis of initial appointment, the Original Application was rightly dismissed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal.