2007 Supreme(SC) 113

2007(1) Supreme 926
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
G.P. Mathur and R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Inder Jeet Khurana—Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3874 of 2001
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3875 and 3876/2001
Decided on 1-2-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties: A.K. Srivastava, Anoop Chaudhary, Mahabir Singh, M.N. Rao, Sr. Advocates, Ajay Siwach, Addl. Advocate General, Manjit Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Puneet Agrawal, Anshuman Ashok, Kishan Datta, Mrs. June Chaudhary, Rishi Malhotra, R.C. Kaushik, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Preeti Singh, Akshat Jain, M.A. Chinnasamy, Pradeep Dahiya, T.V. George, T. Mahipal, Ravindra Bana, Rao Ranjit, Manoj Swarup and K.K. Mohan, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
In the absence of the Rules prescribing any method of recruitment, the appointing authority was at liberty to follow any reasonable and appropriate procedure for selection of Tehsildars, the procedure adopted for assessing the inter se merit is reasonable.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Haryana Revenue (Group B) Service Rules, 1988—Rules 7, 9 and 18—Recruitment of District Revenue Officers and Tehsildars—Recruitment by ‘transfer’ of Ziledars as Tehsildars—Writ petitions challenging validity of—Rules not prescribing method of selection—State Government determined the ratio for sharing the vacancies as 50% for Ziledars from Irrigation Department and 50% for other four categories—State Government constituted a Three Member Committee for recommending names of suitable candidates for appointment as ‘B’ Class Tehsildars from the category of officials specified in Rule 9(1)(b)(iii) by transfer—Selection of three candidates by assessing the inter se merit of candidates—Whether the procedure laid down by the government and adopted by the Committee for selecting the candidates by assessing their comparative merit, was reasonable and did not suffer from any infirmity—(Yes)—Whether division of 50% vacancies for Ziledars and remaining 50% for other four categories as done by the Committee was authorised—(Yes).

       Held : Rule 9 contemplates recruitment to the posts of Tehsildar from three sources. It provides that 40% should be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of recommendations by the State Public Service Commission. The method of selection is merit, by holding the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Service Examination. Another 40% of recruitment should be made by promotion from amongst Naib Tehsildars who have 5 years experience and who have passed the departmental examination of Tehsildars. The method of selection for promotion is by senority-cum-merit. The remaining 20% are required to be filled by transfer from five specified categories of posts. It is, thus, seen that for direct recruitment and for promotion, the Rules specifically prescribe the method of recruitment. But in regard to the 20% posts to be filled by ‘transfer’, the Rules only specify the categories of posts from which transfer could be made and the minimum experience to be possessed. The Rules do not prescribe the method of selection. The Rules are silent as to whether selection should be by merit or seniority or seniority-cum-merit. This clearly shows that the rule-making authority left the choice of prescribing appropriate procedure to the state government/appointing authority in the case of 20% posts to be filled by ‘transfer’. The reason is not far to seek. The selection by transfer was to be made from different categories, namely, Superintendents from the Offices of the Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Superintendents from the Offices of Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners, District Kanungos, Zonal Ziledars of Irrigation Department or Head Assistants from the office of Director, Land Records. The appointing authority had the discretion of choosing the cadre or service from which appointments by transfer were to be made, depending upon the special or periodical requirements, the number of vacancies to be filled, and the number of eligible candidates available in the category. In the circumstances, the method of selection was left to be decided by the appointing authority. (Para 11)

       In the absence of the Rules prescribing any method of recruitment, the appointing authority was at liberty to follow any reasonable and appropriate procedure for selection. In this case, the selection was made purely on the basis of merit. The procedure adopted for assessing the inter se merit on the basis of five years’ ACRs. and interview (set out in Para 6 above) is reasonable and does not suffer from any infirmity, as rightly held by the High Court.(Para 13)

       In regard to the recruitment in question, the State Government (Financial Commissioner) proposed that the vacancies shall be shared in the ratio of 50% for Ziledars and 50% by the other four categories. This proposal was in line with earlier recruitment where such ratio was followed. The said proposal made by the Financial Commissioner on 14.7.1992 was accepted by the Chief Minister on 17.7.1992. Thus, there was a clear decision by the government that only 50% of the vacancies will be filled up from the category of Ziledars. As six posts were to be filled by transfer, three were filled from the category of Ziledars by assessing their inter se merit, and the other three posts were from the other categories. There was no question of mixing the category of Ziledars with the other categories for the purpose of selection by transfer. The decision allotting 50% of vacancies is taken by the Government and not the Committee, and does not suffer from any infirmity. (Para 18)