Krishan
Kumar, Assistant Secretary, Market Committee, Bhiwani Vs. Haryana State
Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula [1997] INSC 357 (31 March 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R Leave granted This appeal by special leave arises fromthe judgment of theDivision
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made onMay
29,1996 inCWP No.16133/95.
The
admitted position isthat an advertisement was published by the respondent for
recruitment to the post of Assistant Secretary of theHaryana StateAgricultural
Marketing Board. Out of 11 posts notified forrecruitment, six posts werereserved
for general candidates, 3 posts for Scheduled Caste and 2posts for Other
Backward Classes.
Pursuant
thereto, the appellanthad appealed for considerationof his claim for
appointment. The qualifications prescribed under the Haryana State Agricultural
Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974 (for short, the `Rules') are thus:
"(1)
Graduateof recognised University; and (2) Adequate knowledgeof the PunjabAgricultural
Produce Marketing Act, Rules and Regulations; and (3) At lease threeyears
experience in Government office/Semi GovernmentBody." The appellant hadthe
experience of working in Haryana Warehousing Corporation(i) from 6.10.1984 to
4.1.1985,(ii) from 7.1.1985 to 31.3.1985, (iii) from6.5.1985 to 28.7.1985, (iv)
from 30.7.1985 to 29.10.1985and (v)from 2.11.1985 to 5.12.1985. He also had the
experience of working in Hissar Nationalcooperative House Building SocietyLtd.,
Hissar between 24.4.1988 and 30.4.1991. On the basis thereof, he was selected
and appointed. He joinedduty on August 1, 1992. Subsequently, Writ Petition No. 161/95 was filed and by
judgment dated January
2, 1995, theHigh Court
directed the Board to examine whether theappointments were duly made and appointees
were duly qualified in accordance withrules. It was directed further that in
case, the candidateswere not qualified, theappointments must be deemed to havebeen
set aside. In furtherance thereof, a notice was given to the appellant producethe
record.
Accordingly,
the appellant produced the record. The authority considered the same and held
thus:
"Shri
Krishna Kumar, respondent No.6 has produced the experience certificate of the Hissarnational
Cooperative HouseBuilding Society Ltd., Hissar wherehe has worked as
Accountant-cum-Clerk from 24.4.1988 to30.4.1991. His appointment is also
subject to verification of the experiencecertificate submitted by him. Incase,the
experience certificate is notfound genuine as per rules, the Board reserves the
right to cancel his appointment." Itis stated that they have examined the
certificate and found it to be genuine but Hissar Cooperative House Building
Society was not found to be a Semi-Government Society. No contribution of the
Government fund was made to the society.Accordingly, his appointmentcame to be
terminated. Calling that order in question, he filedwrit petition whichwas dismissed.Thus,
this appeal by special leave.
The
notice was issue by this Court on September 30, 1996 wherein itwas stated as under:
"It
is reported on instruction by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the
petitioner is now of 36years of age and he will not be qualified for any other
appointment. He also states that the petitioner has meritorious record to his
credit. Therefore, he requests that a notice may be issued to the respondent to
consider his case on sympathetic consideration." Counter-affidavit has
been filed by the respondent statingthat they arenot willing to consider his case
sympathetically. They have stated in their counter-affidavit in para 3(f) that
the Hissar National Cooperative House Building Society is nota semi-Government
body as per report of the Registrar, CooperativeSocieties, Haryana. Thus he
does not fulfill the qualification prescribed under the rules.
The learned
counsel for the appellant has contended that he not submitted any illegal
certificate. He has submitted the certificates before the authority which was
found to be correct. He has sufficient experience before he was appointed as
Assistant Secretary. It is further urged that though it is now found that it is
not a semi-Government body, he maybe considered to be appointed with the
requisite qualifications and the experience. He has also brought to our notice that
the rules had been amended deleting the requirement of 3 years experience, by
the order of the Government dated October 6, 1995, whereas the order of termination came
to be made on October
31, 1995. Thus, his
case may beconsidered on the footing that he had at the relevant time
sufficient experience. The learned counsel for the respondenthas stated that sincethe
qualification is one of the condition, as foundby the High Court and at the
relevant time,he didnot possess that qualification, the dismissal of him fromserviceis
in accordance with the rules.
Inview
ofthe respective contention, the questionthat arises for consideration is:
whether the viewtaken by the High Court is correctin law? Strictly speaking, theHigh
Court order does not suffer from anyillegality for the reason that ason thedate
ofapplication forselection he did not have the prescribed 3years experience as
required by theRule. In other word, 3 years experiencewas required as necessary
qualification for appointment as Assistant Secretary. It is seenthat during the
period between his appointment ofthe writ appointment onJanuary10, 1992 and
allowing of the writ petition, he has gained sufficient experience of working
as Assistant Secretary and his performance ofthe duties as Assistant Secretary
has not also been disputed or any fault found by the respondent. It is seen
that he is now barred by age.Under these circumstances,we think that the
respondent should reconsider thematter afresh and takeappropriate decision to
appoint him as Assistant Secretary.
Inview
of the above legal position and also the factualsituation, theappeal is allowed
and writ is issued but, inthe circumstance, without costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
