JAVID IQBAL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a patwari was asked to hold the charge of Reader to Tehsildar settlement, R.S. Pura, vide order dated 17.10.1989. He was later handed over the charge of Girdawar consequent upon the superannuation of one Som Nath by order dated 22.2.1993. He was then asked to hold the charge of Girdawari Circle Gharana vide order dated 4.7.1994. Meanwhile he was recommended for promotion to the post of Girdawar and his case for payment of charge allowance was also recommended but it was not sanctioned in his favour. He thereafter filed Writ Petition (SWP 963/95) in this court which was allowed with a direction to the respondents to release the charge allowance to him in accordance with rules. It appears that the Public Service Commission (PSC), respondent No. 4 herein, invited applications from eligible candidates for Conducting the departmental examination of Naib Tehsildars. He responded to this by submitting his application and attaching a certificate of eligibility alongwith it issued by the Deputy Commissioner concerned under rules. He was granted Admit -Card and appeared in the examination from 24th to 29th July, 1995. Later, it appears that some complaint was made questioning his eligibility upon which respondent No. 4 sought clarification from respondent No. 3 (Dy. Commissioner). This was furnished and respondent No. 3 {PSC) was informed vide letter dated 18.7.1995 that he was working as Girdawar/Reader since 1972 and was eligible in terms of the relevent eligibility clause contained in the Rules.

(2.) IT further appears that some other complaint was also made in the Vigilance organisation alleging that the petitioner had managed to apply for taking the Naib Tehsildar examination which was forwarded to respondent No. 2 who took up the matter with respondent No. 3 (PSC) and finally proceeded to cancel the eligibility certificate Issued by Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, vide impugned order dated 19.12.1995, in favour of the petitioner after noticing that he had been asked to hold the charge of Reader initially in 1992 by the Tehsildar Settlement who was incompetent to do so.

(3.) PETITIONER has questioned this order on the primary ground that he was eligible to appear in the examination under the Naib Tehsildar Departmental Examination Rules, 1964 (1964 Rules) under which the Deputy Commissioner alone could certify his eligibility and since these rules do not provide for any remedy of appeal or revision to respondent No. 2. (Financial Commissioner) he was not competent to cancel the eligibility certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner.