The cut-off date for assessing eligibility in recruitment under the Haryana Civil Service Rules is not uniform for all conditions; it varies based on the specific criteria, particularly regarding disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The broad issue at hand relates to recruitment and appointment to the posts in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch)¹ [hereinafter referred to as ‘Service’]. The process of recruitment to the posts in the Service are governed by Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 [for short ‘the Rules’].

3. Part II² [Part II runs from Rule 3 to Rule 34] of the Rules is titled ‘Recruitment to Service’. For a person to be appointed in the Service, Rule 7³ [Rule 7 - Members of the Service shall be appointed from time to time as required from amongst accepted candidates whose names have been duly entered in accordance with these rules in one or other of the registers of Accepted Candidates to be maintained under these rules:

Provided that if in the opinion of the Government the exigencies of the Service so require, the Government may make special recruitment to the Service by such methods as it may by notification specify, after consultation with the Commission] requires that such person’s name must be found in ‘one or other of the registers of Accepted Candidates to be maintained under these rules. Rule 8⁴ [Rule 8 - The following Registers of Accepted Candidates shall be maintained by the Chief Secretary, namely: (a) Register A-I of District Revenue Officers/Tahsildars accepted as candidates; (b) Register A-II of members of Group C Service accepted as candidates; (c) Register B of Persons accepted as candidates as a result of a competitive examination for the post of the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and (d) Register C of District Development and Panchayat Officer/Block Development and Panchayat Officers] requires the Chief Secretary to maintain ‘Registers of Accepted Candidates’. From among the various Registers to be maintained, what is of relevance to us for adjudicating this dispute is the one found in Rule 8 (a):

“Register A-I of District Revenue Officer/Tehsildars accepted as candidates.”

4. Rule 9 deals with the selection of candidates for inclusion of their names in Register A-1. According to this Rule, the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government (hereinafter referred as, the Commissioner) is required to prepare a list of District Revenue Officer/Tehsildars not more than five times the number of vacancies and submit this list to the Committee⁵ [Rule 9 of 2008 Rules states that the Committee shall comprise of a Chief Sectary as the Chairman and two such other officers as members, as may be nominated by the Government from time to time] for its consideration. Only such names are to be forwarded to the Commission who satisfy the conditions set out in clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 9. Clause (a) of Rule 9 contains four sub clauses. In that sense, the conditions set out in clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 9 provide the eligibility criteria for selection of candidates in Register A-1. We shall advert to the relevant clauses in due course.

5. Once the names are entered in the Register, Rule 17 provides that the Government of Haryana shall make appointments to the Service from amongst the candidates whose names are entered in the various registers on a rotational basis.

6. Dinesh Singh (Respondent No. 1) was one among several candidates, who was seeking appointment to the post in the Service. He was appointed in the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management (Appellant No. 3; hereinafter ‘the Department’) on 12.08.2008 as a Naib Tehsildar, and at the time of filing the original Writ Petition, was serving in the post of Tehsildar. The Department has found Dinesh Singh, among several others, to be ineligible for selection to Register A-1 on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility condition set out in sub clause (iii) of clause (a) of Rule 9. Rule 9 (a)(iii) reads as follows:

“Is not facing disciplinary proceedings and against whom action is not being contemplated.”

7. According to the Department, Dinesh Singh, though was not facing any disciplina