SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(SC) 139

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.
(Ex) Capt. Randhir Singh Dhull, Appellants
Versus
S. B. Bhambri and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 1099 of 1979, D/- 2-3-1981.
Advocates appeared
R. K. Garg. Sr. Advocate M/s. P. C. Bhartari, K. S. Tiwari, Arvind Kumar and Mrs. Laxmi Arvind, Advocates for Appellant; M/S. K. G. Bhagat and M. N. Shroff, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 1-2.

Advocates:
ARVIND KUMAR SHUKLA, K.G.Bhagat, K.S.TIVARI, Laxmi Arvind Mathur, M.N.SHROFF, P.C.BHARTARI, R.K.GARG

Headnote:

Constitution Of India Article 14, 16, 32, 352, 309 - Tahsildari Rules - sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 and Rule 11 - Rule 4, 10 - Military services - Material facts may be stated in a short compass - Petitioner an ex-army Personnel, his rank, having been Captain - Respondent No. 1 through Service Commission by an advertisement called for applications that a combined competitive examination for recruitment to, inter alia - A Class Tahsildar (Apprentices) would be held by Service Commission in accordance with rules contained in Service - Petitioner appeared in said examination and was successful and as a result he was appointed to present post of Tahsildar Class II post against reserved post/service for ex-services - Whether it is a letter of appointment of petitioner to post of Tahsildar, as claimed - Whether it is a letter of acceptance of candidature of petitioner to post of Tahsildar, as contended by respondent –Held, A perusal of letter as per Annexure P. 5 along with sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 and Rule 11 of Tahsildari Rules clearly show that by letter Annexure P. 5 petitioner was merely accepted as a candidate for post of Tahasildar - Annexure P. 5 itself has mentioned terms and conditions of service namely tRaming, passing of departmental examination and probation to be governed by Tahsildari Rules and Standing Order No. 12 as amended from time to time - Conditions named in letter before his appointment to post of Tahsildar - Petitioners further grievance is that military service of Captain of petition have been counted for benefit of their seniority etc - Petitioners grievance is baseless - Their cases were different - None of them was given benefit of his service from date he joined as a Candidate respondent in counter affidavit asserts that not a single ex-army service Tahsildar Candidate has been allowed benefit of military service from date of acceptance as class A Tahsildar candidate – Appeal Dismissed.

Judgment

BAHARUL ISLAM, J.:- This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner, Ex Capt. Randhir Singh Dhull prays that the military services rendered by him from 1963 to 1974 (except for the period during 1963 from 2-7-1968 to 13-10-1968) be tagged to his services with effect from 26-9-1974 for the purpose of his seniority, increments, promotion, pensions etc., and for a direction to respondent No. 1. the State of Haryana, to promote him to the Haryana Civil Service (Emergency. Branch)-" on the basis of the seniority claimed with effect from the date mentioned above. His grievance is that respondents Nos. 3 to 18 who were junior to him had been promoted and put above him. The impugned action of respondent No. 1, according to the Petitioner, has violated Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution

2. This case has a chequered career. The material facts may be stated in a short compass. The Petitioner an ex-army Personnel, his rank, having been Captain. He served during the period of Emergency from 29-4-1963 to 1-7-1968 and also during the period of Emergency from 31-10-1969 to 22-9-1974, the total Period of service thus having been 10 years, one month and 23 days before his appointment to the present post he is now holding.

3. The respondent No. 1 through the Haryana Public Service Commission" by an advertisement called for applications that a combined competitive examination for recruitment to, inter alia. "A Class Tahsildar (Apprentices) would be held by the Haryana Public Service Commission at Chandigarh in March, 1973 in accordance with the rules contained in the Punjab Public Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930. The petitioner appeared in the said examination and was successful and as a result he was appointed to present post of Tahsildar Class II post against reserved post/service for ex-services".

4. There is a set of Rules called the Punjab Emergency (Concession) Rules 1965 (hereinafter the Emergency Concession Rules). According to the petitioner he joined civil post on 26-9-1974 and under Rule 4 (i) & (ii) of the aforesaid Rules and the administrative instructions his services are required to be counted immediately on his joining the Civil Post namely with effect from 26-9-1974, tagging the period of military services to the present post. But as respondent No. 1 did not do so, he sent several representations to respondent No. 1 to give him the benefit of seniority promotion, increment etc. according to the said set of rules. The petitioner alleges that while respondent No. 1 did not tag the petitioners period of military service towards his seniority promotion and increment, respondent No. 1 gave similar facilities to Capt. Phul Singh, Kewal Singh, Indraj Singh, H. R. Kapur and other respondents. His further allegation is that while he has been deprived of his dues mentioned above, respondents Nos. 3 to 18 who were junior to him were promoted to be put above him.

As the respondent No. 1 did not favourably react to the, representations made by the petitioner, he filed a Writ Petition, being W. P. No. 1398/77, in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana but he withdrew it on a promise made by the Counsel of respondent No. 1. But as respondent. No. 1 did not keep the promise, he filed an application for review of the order made in W. P. No. 1398 of 1977. The petition for review was rejected but he was permitted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to file a fresh application. He then filed CWP No. 3584 of 1977 which was dismissed in August 1978 by a single Judge of the said, High Court. The Petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of the single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner then filed a special leave petition before this Court. The special leave petition was also dismissed. He then filed an application for review before this Court. The application for review was also dismissed in limine. The petitioner then filed an application before the single J


































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top