SONAM YONJOUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 came to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar on 8th of Nov. 1985 and petitioner No. 2 came to be appointed in the same capacity vide order dated 16th of Jan. 1987. Copies of these orders have been placed on the record as Annexure "A" & "B". In the orders referred to above, it was categorically mentioned that the petitioners have to pass the examination meant for Naib Tehsildar. This was to be passed within a period of two years. There was a condition that if this is not done, then the petitioner would be reverted. The petitioners submit that the examination which was to be conducted on 4th of March 1991, the petitioners were not permitted to take part in the process of examination as they were called upon to take part in the election process. The petitioners submit that now an order of reversion has been passed on 1st of Sept. 1997. In para "3" of this order, it is mentioned that the petitioners have failed to qualify in the Naib Tehsildars examination and have rendered themselves ineligible for continuing in substantive capacity against the posts of Naib Tehsildars. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioners submit that they cannot be held liable for inaction on the part of the respondents. The petitioner submit that they were willing and -ready to take part in the process of examination but could not take part in the examination on account of the fact that they were called upon to take part in the election process.

(3.) IT be seen that whether any examination was held or whether the petitioners were called upon to take part in the election process is not clear from the objections. It be seen that whether any examination was held or whether the petitioners were called upon to appear in the examination is not apparent from the stand taken by the respondents. In this situation what was said by the Supreme Court of India in case reported as State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandkar, AIR 1989 SC 1133, would be attracted to the facts of this case also. In the above case it was noticed that the State Government did prescribe department examination as a condition precedent for promotion to the cadre of Superintendents. The examinations were required to be conducted every year, and the officials had to pass this examination within the time frame were to lose their seniority but they could be promoted as and when they qualified themselves. The government for some reason or the other could not hold the examination every year. The Government at the same did not pass any order extending the period prescribed for passing the examinations and promoted the seniors officials subject to their passing the examination. The juniors who qualified themselves were also promoted over looking the case of seniors and seniors were only promoted upon their passing the examination. Later on, the cadre of Superintendents, the Government revised the seniority list so as to reflect the rankings in the lower cadre irrespective of the date of promotion.