LAWS(RAJ)-1969-11-3

MAN MOHAN KAUSHIB Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On November 14, 1969
MAN MOHAN KAUSHIB Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two writ petitions are the members of the Rajasthan Police Service and by filing these petitions they have challenged the correctness of the seniority list of the Rajasthan Police Service Officers issued on 19th June, 1966, under Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules. 1954, (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules ). Accept Shri Rameshwar Khuteta and Shri Om Prakash respondents Nos. 25 and 26 in the writ application filed by Mr. Kaushib, all the respondents are common in both these petitions. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions I propose to dispose them of by one judgment.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they were recruited to the Rajasthan Police Service through competitive examination in the year 1954 and that their appointment was made by the State Government by issuing the appointment letter Ex. P. 2 dated 13th September, 1955. In Writ Petition No. 533 of 1966, respondents Nos. 6 to 24 except respondent No. 19 Shri Ram Singh were recruited to the Rajasthan Police Service in the promotion quota under Rule 7 (b) and (c) of the Rules in the year 1955, but their appointment was actually made in the year 1956. Out of these respondents respondents No. 6 to 9, 11, 13 and 15 were recruited under rule 7 (c) by special selection. THEir appointment was made on 29th May, 1956, by Ex. P. 7. THE other respondents were also appointed by the same order, but their appointment was made under rule 7 (b ).

(3.) RULE 7 which falls in part III, of the RULEs deals with the sources of recruitment to the Service and lays down that the recruitment to the service after and commencement of the rules shall be made - (a) by a competitive examination; (b) by promotion of Inspectors; and (c) by special selection from among the temporary officers of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, so appointed before 14th July, 1954, to posts encadred in the Service at the commencement of these rules, or from among officers of the Mewar Bhil Corps, serving in the corresponding ranks on 14th July, 1954. There is proviso appended to clause (c) of rule 7, which curtails the power of the Government to recruit to the service through special recruitment under clause (c) of rule 7 after 31st December, 1955. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the process of selection by promotion under rule 7 (b) and special selection under rule 7 (c) had started in the year 1955 and persons were selected for appointment under clauses (b) and (c) of RULE 7 in the year 1955, but for one reason or the other their appointments could not be notified till 29th of May, 1956. Mr. Mridul appearing on behalf of the respondents has urged that in the scheme of the rules the recruitment and the appointment are two different things. The procedure for recruitment has been laid down by the rule making authority in part III whereas the provisions for making appointment are incorporated in part VII of the RULEs. According to Mr. Mridul recruitment is an initial process which may ultimately lead to appointment in the Service by issuing an order of appointment by the appointing authority and, therefore, it cannot be said that these two processes namely recruitment and appointment are identical. He further submits that if the appointment letter for the respondents was issued by the Government on 29th of May, 1956, it cannot be said that they were not properly recruited by the recruiting authority before 31st of December, 1955. In support of this contention he placed reliance on the authority of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurdev Singh Gill v. The State of Punjab (1 ).