K.L.BEAKTA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent appeal has been filed by K. L. Beakta and Mohan Lal, Naib -Tehsildars, against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge rendered on April 22, 1974 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.

(2.) In the writ petition, the petitioners challenged an order dated the 8th June, 1971 (Annexure C to the writ petition) under which 14 persons, impleaded as respondents in the writ petition, were exempted from the requirement of passing the departmental examination of Tehsildars, and an order of the same date (Annexure D to the writ petition) whereby 12 persons were promoted as officiating Tehsildars by way of a stop -gap arrangement. The petitioners also prayed for a direction to the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Financial Commissioner and the Deputy Secretary (Revenue) to consider their cases for promotion to the posts of Tehsildar.

(3.) According to the petitioners, they are Class A candidate Naib -Tehsildars and were recruited on July 13, 1954. They plead that they had qualified In the examination of Tehsildars, but respondents Nos. 4 to 16 did not pass that examination and, it is said, they were therefore not qualified to be promoted as Tehsildars in view of rule 5 (ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Tehsildari Rules, 1953 (hereinafter called the Rules). It is pointed out that the Financial Commissioner could waive the qualification under the proviso to rule 5 (ii) but he had to record in writing the special reasons for doing so. It was also stated that the departmental promotion committee (shortly referred to as the DJPC was constituted in 1959 by the Lt. Governor, the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh. In June, 1971, several vacancies to the posts of Tehsildar fell vacant and the Financial Commissioner, as the appointing authority, was to make promotions thereto. He exempted respondents Nos. 4 to 16 from qualifying in the departmental examination and their cases were considered in the DPC. It is alleged that DPC was invalidly constituted, inasmuch as the Commissioner, who was intended to be a member of the DPC, did not participate and instead the Assistant Commissioner Shri K.N. Sharma, the Deputy Secretary Shri S. R. Mahantan, and the Undersecretary Shri K. C. Chauhan took part in the deliberations of the DPC. It is urged that the Financial Commissioner was influenced by the opinion of the invalidly constituted DPC, when the Rules require that he should form an independent opinion of his own. The petitioners say that they had a right to be considered for promotion by a validly constituted DPC. It is also stated that the Financial Commissioner did not give any reasons for exempting respondents Nos. 4 to 16 from appearing in the qualifying examination and that no special reasons existed for granting such exemption. It is also contended that the State Public Service Commission was not consulted, and therefore the order appointing the respondents as Tehsildars was vitiated.