JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J. :— This appeal is by special leave and is directed against the appellate judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the decision of a learned single Judge of that Court by dismissing the appeal in limine. The Haryana Public Service Commission advertised the filling-up of 4 posts of District Food and Supplies Officers by direct recruitment. The Commission prescribed, inter alia, that one of the essential qualifications shall be "five/three years experience as an executive officer in a commercial organisation of Government or. Semi-Government office before or after acquiring the academic degree" and the Special Secretary to Haryana Government in the Food and Supplies Department, on 20th of February, 1981, wrote to the Secretary of the Commission affirming that position and added that :

"Certain Inspectors/ Sub- Inspectors of this Department seem to have sent their applications (advance copies) to the Commission for these posts. The work of Inspectors/Sub-lnspectors is of executive nature though they are not officers. As such, in case the Commission feels that they fulfil the qualifications for the posts in question. this department have no objection to the names of the Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors who have applied directly to the Commission, to be considered for these posts."

2. The Commission called the appellant and other similarly placed candidates for interview but required them to produce certificates from the State Government to the effect that they had the requisite experience of executive officer. The State Government, however, did not issue such certificates and in their absence the Commission did not consider the Inspector and Sub-Inspector candidates as having the requisite qualification for being candidates for the post. The selection was undertaken excluding them. Thereupon a writ petition was filed before the High Court claiming that the appellant had the requisite qualification having been an executive officer for the requisite period and his exclusion was unjustified and the selection made by the. Commission was hit on account of infraction of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge negatived this stand and dismissed the writ petition* and the Division Bench upheld the decision of the single Judge by dismissing the appeal in limine.

* Reported in 1981 Lab IC 1140 (Punj & Har).

3. In this appeal the sole question for consideration is whether Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Food and Supplies Department are executive offices. That they held executive posts and for the required period was conceded in Government letter of 21st of February, 1981. It has, therefore, to be found out whether Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors could be treated as officers.

4. The selected candidates were not made parties to the writ petition. A civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to add them as party-respondents to the appeal and that application had been placed for hearing along with the appeal.

5. Mr. P. P. Rao appearing in support of the appeal has contended that the post of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors belonged to the category of executive office and the High Court, therefore, came to a wrong conclusion. In earlier years certain similarly situated Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of the Department had been appointed on the basis that they satisfied the requirements of clause (c) of the advertisement and there was no justification for a different bases when further recruitment was undertaken in 1980.

6. None of the parties has placed any definition of the term Officer from any Haryana Statute. It is not the contention of counsel appearing for any of the parties that the administrative orders gave a definition to the term. In such a situation, the common parlance meaning of officer has to be accepted for the purpose of finding out whether Inspectors and Sub-inspectors held the post of officer. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the term Officer is:-