GANGA RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 17th November, 2000 of H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby his Original Application, registered at No. 26 of 1991, seeking a direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider him for acceptance as Kanungo candidate, w.e.f. 25th February, 1990, has been dismissed. He has filed the present writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial review of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal.

(2.) WE may first notice the relevant facts. Petitioner was appointed as Patwari in the Revenue Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh, in the year 1978. His educational qualification, at the time of appointment, was graduation. The Rules regarding recruitment and promotion of Kanungos provide for selection of Patwaris as Kanungo candidates. According to the relevant Rules, which was amended vide Notification dated 3th June, 1980, in the name of Governor of Himachal Pradesh, Patwaris, with three years service, who have passed matriculation examination or its equivalent or who are middle pass, are to be accepted as Kanungo candidates in the ratio of 2:1, but preference is to be given to those Patwaris, who are graduates or postgraduates. In the year 1990, there were 41 vacancies for acceptance as Kanungo candidates from amongst the serving Patwaries. Petitioners name figured at serial No. 249 in the seniority list. He, being graduate, was expecting his name to be included in the list of accepted candidates. However, respondent No. 3 did not even consider the name of the petitioner. Petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 2, the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. His representation was dismissed by a speaking order, Annexure A -4. The order said that the operation of the Rule, providing for preference to graduate/postgraduate patwaris, had been suspended by the Government, vide telegram dated 11th May, 1988, Annexure R -2. Petitioner then approached the State Administrative Tribunal. He claimed that, being a graduate Patwari, he was entitled to be preferred to other Patwaris, i.e. respondents No. 4 to 44; who had been accepted as Kanungo candidates. He prayed that respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed to consider his candidates, in the light of the Rule providing for preference to graduate and postgraduate Patwaris.

(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 3 took the plea that vide telegram dated 11th May, 1988, Annexure R -2, addressed by the State Government to all the Deputy Commissioner, Rule providing for preference to graduate and postgraduate Patwaris, in the matter of acceptance of Kanungo candidates, had been rendered inoperative till further orders as ultimately the Rule had been withdrawn, vide notification dated 10th December, 1990 (copy Annexure R -3). Private respondents also took the same stand as respondents No. 1 to 3.