The method of selection for transfer from the category of Ziledars to the post of Tahsildars was left to the appointing authority, and the court upheld the assessment of comparative merit as a reasonable procedure. The court also clarified that the Rules did not specify 'seniority-cum-merit' as the method of recruitment for transfer.

Headnote:
Recruitment - Ziledars - Haryana Revenue (Group B) Service Rules, 1988 - Rule 9(1)(b) - Rule 18 - The court upheld the selection of candidates for the post of Tahsildars by transfer from the category of Ziledars, based on the assessment of their comparative merit. The Rules did not prescribe the method of selection for transfer, leaving it to the appointing authority. The court found the procedure adopted for assessing inter se merit to be reasonable and in accordance with the Rules. The contention that selection should be by 'seniority-cum-merit' was rejected, as the Rules did not specify this method for transfer. The court also dismissed the alternative contention that Standing Order 12 should apply, as it was replaced by the 1988 Rules. The court upheld the decision of the Government to allocate 50% of vacancies to Ziledars and 50% to other categories, finding no infirmity in the decision. The court also rejected contentions related to the calculation of marks for ACRs and interview, and the appointment of candidates from other categories. The appeals were dismissed.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, Ziledars in the Irrigation Department, filed writ petitions challenging the recruitment by 'transfer' of certain candidates as B Class Tahsildars. They contended that the selection should have been based on seniority-cum-merit and that the allocation of vacancies was unauthorized. They also raised issues regarding the calculation of marks for ACRs and interview, and the appointment of candidates from other categories.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the selection of candidates for the post of Tahsildars by transfer from the category of Ziledars, based on the assessment of their comparative merit. The court found the procedure adopted for assessing inter se merit to be reasonable and in accordance with the Rules. The contention that selection should be by 'seniority-cum-merit' was rejected, as the Rules did not specify this method for transfer. The court also dismissed contentions related to the calculation of marks for ACRs and interview, and the appointment of candidates from other categories.
Issues: The issues included the method of selection for transfer, the allocation of vacancies, and the calculation of marks for ACRs and interview. The court also addressed the appointment of candidates from other categories.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rules did not prescribe the method of selection for transfer, leaving it to the appointing authority. The court found the procedure adopted for assessing inter se merit to be reasonable and in accordance with the Rules. The contention that selection should be by 'seniority-cum-merit' was rejected, as the Rules did not specify this method for transfer. The court also upheld the decision of the Government to allocate 50% of vacancies to Ziledars and 50% to other categories, finding no infirmity in the decision.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed as having no merit. Parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

Judgment

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. - These appeals by special leave are against the judgment dated 16 - 12 - 1994 in CWP No. 337 of 1994, CWP No. 14702 of 1992 and CWP No. 16236 of 1992 respectively of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

2. The appellants, who were working as Ziledars in the Irrigation Department, in the State of Haryana, filed the said writ petitions for quashing the recruitment by "transfer" of Ziledars Ashok Kumar Gaur, Sant Lal Pachar and Bhagwan Dass, as B Class Tahsildars, vide order of appointment dated 21 - 10 - 1992. The appellant in CA No. 3874 of 2001 has in addition challenged the recruitment by "transfer" of Brij Bhushan, latinder Kumar a and Mam Chand as B Class Tahsildars.

3. The Haryana Revenue (Group B) Service Rules, 1988 (for short "the Rules") govern the recruitment to Revenue Group B Service consisting of District Revenue Officers and Tahsildars. Rule 9 relates to the method of recruitment. Clause (b) of Rule 9(1) provides that in the case of Tahsildars, recruitment to the service shall be: (i) 40% by direct recruitment (selected by b PSC on the basis of a service examination); (ii) 40% by promotion from amongst Naib Tahsildars; and (iii) 20% by transfer from amongst:

"(i) Superintendents of the office of the Deputy Commissioners;

(ii) Assistant Superintendents of Commissioners and Deputy

Commissioners offices;

(iii) District Kanungos;

(iv) Zonal Ziledars of PWD (Irrigation Branch); or

(v) Head Assistants of Director, Land Records Office."

Sub - rule (2) provides that appointment by promotion shall be made on seniority - cum - merit.

4. Rule 7 relates to qualifications and provides that no person shall be d appointed to any post in the service, unless he possesses the qualifications and experience specified in column 3 of Appendix B to the Rules in the case of direct recruitment, and those specified in column 4 of the aforesaid appendix in the case of persons appointed other than by direct recruitment. Column 4 of Appendix B prescribes the following experience for appointment to the post of "Tahsildar" by promotion and transfer:

"(1) By promotion:

Five years experience as Naib Tahsildar and who has qualified in departmental examination of Tahsildar.

(2) By transfer:

one years experience as Superintendent III the Deputy Commissioners office; or five years experience as Assistant Superintendent III Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners offices; or five years experience as District Kanungo; or five years experience as Canal Ziledars of PWD (Irrigation Branch); or five years experience as Head Assistant in Director, Land Records office, Haryana."

5. Rule 18 provides that where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of the Rules with respect to any class or category of persons.

6. By communication dated 10 - 9 - 1991, the Financial Commissioner, who is the appointing authority for the posts of Tahsildar, informed the Engineer - in - Chief, Irrigation Department, that he proposes to select three Tahsildars by way of transfer and requested him to recommend the names of suitable and eligible officials of the age up to 50 years and also send their confidential personal files and service - books. (He also sent such requisition to the Heads of Department of other eligible categories.) In response to it, the office of the Engineer - in - Chief, Irrigation Department, by letter dated 6 - 11 - 1991 recommended the names of 39 Ziledars, including Ashok Kumar Gaur, Sant Lal Pachar and Bhagwan Dass (who were selected), and the three appellants (who were not selected).

7. The State Government determined the ratio for sharing the vacancies as 50% for Ziledars from Irrigation Department and 50% for other four categories. The State Government also constituted a three - member committee consisting of Commissioner, Ambala Division as Chairman and Joint Secretary, Revenue and Director, Land Records

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2007 Supreme(SC) 105

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis