MAHENDRA KUMAR TALY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was temporarily appointed as Excise Inspector Grade II by the order of the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur dated October 3, 1968. The petitioner continued to hold the said post until the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as '1974 Rules') came into force. Under Clause (iii) of the proviso to Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules, the petitioner was subjected to screening by a Committeefor adjudgment of his suitability for the post of Excise Inspector Grade II, which post is included in the Schedule appended to the 1974 Rules and on which the petitioner was working in a temporary capacity from a date prior to January 1, 1972. The petitioner was not considered suitable by the Screening Committee and by the order passed by the District Excise Officer, Ajmer dated October 16, 1974 the service of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged in the present writ petition the termination of his service from the post of Excise Inspector Grade II. Two grounds were urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before me. In the first placet it was argued that the petitioner was recruited to the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service (General Branch) before the commencement of 1974 Rules and as such he should have been appointed on the post of Excise Inspector Grade II Under Rule 5(b) of the 1974 Rules. The second ground urged by the learned Counsel was that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of personal hearing by the Screening Committee before finding him unsuitable, on the basis of which petitioner's service was terminated.

(3.) AS regards the second contention advanced by learned Counsel, it may be observed that in the case of Yaswant Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan 1980 WLN (UC) 114 Agrawal, J. has held, in respect of the very same selection made under Clause (iii) of the first proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules, that the Screening Commiitee should have afforded an opportunity to the concerned employee to explain the adverse material contained in the service record and the denial of such an opportunity vitiated the recommendations of the Screening Committee with regard to the suitability of the employee for appointment to the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service (General Branch). Yaswant Kumar, petitioner in that case was also an Excise Inspector Grade II like the petitioner in the present writ petition and he was also found unsuitable by the Screening Committee while making recommendations under Clause (ii) of the first proviso to Rule 6. In pursuance of the recommendation of the Screening Committee, Yaswant Kumar was reverted from the post of Excise Inspector Garde II to the post of Lower Division Clerk. The learned Single Judge set aside the selection. An appeal was preferred by the State of Rajasthan in Yaswant Kumar's case but a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by Agrawal, J. on September 8, 1980, Consequently, the Excise Commissioner also passed an order in favour of Yaswant Kumar on December 11, 1980.