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

1988 Supreme(Raj) 915

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.N.Bhargava, P.C, Jain, JJ.
Syed Mansoor Ali - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Anr. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1848 of 1988.
Decided On : 19-12-1988

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Shri P.V. Calla, Advocate.
For the State :Shri M.I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General.

An appointment made after due process of selection, even on a temporary post, is considered a substantive appointment.

Headnote:

SERVICE LAW - SUBSTANTIVE APPOINTMENT - RAJASTHAN SUBORDINATE OFFICES MINISTERIAL STAFF RULES, 1957 - RAJASTHAN SUBORDINATE ACCOUNTS SERVICE RULES, 1963 - APPOINTMENT OF LDC THROUGH RPSC - CONFIRMATION AFTER 2 YEARS - CANCELLATION OF PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT AS JUNIOR ACCOUNTANT - HELD, APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER AS LDC WAS SUBSTANTIVE AND HE WAS ENTITLED TO BE APPOINTED AS JUNIOR ACCOUNTANT.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, appointed as LDC through RPSC, challenged the cancellation of his provisional appointment as Junior Accountant on the ground that he was not substantively appointed as LDC. He argued that his appointment was substantive as he was appointed after due process of selection and completed 2 years of service satisfactorily.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's appointment as LDC was substantive as he was appointed through RPSC after due process of selection and completed 2 years of service satisfactorily. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in G.C. Gupta v. N.K. Pandey and Baleshwar Das v. State of U.P. to support its finding.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's appointment as LDC was substantive?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an appointment made after due process of selection, even on a temporary post, is considered a substantive appointment. The court reasoned that the petitioner's appointment as LDC was substantive as he was appointed through RPSC after due process of selection and completed 2 years of service satisfactorily.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order canceling the petitioner's provisional appointment as Junior Accountant, and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Accountant with effect from the date when other selected Junior Accountants were appointed.

JUDGMENT

1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction to quash the letter dated 27th April, 1988 (Ex. 4), by which his promotion as Junior Accountant was ordered to be cancelled. The petitioner has further prayed that he be directed to be appointed as Junior Accountant as a direct recruit with effect from the date the other selected Junior accountant were appointed as per merit.

2. Briefly stated the fact's of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of LDC for Jaipur Zone in pursuance of the advertisement No. 5 of 1st June, 1983, for regular appointment as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules. 1957 (for short, the Rules). The petitioner was placed in merit at No. 74, in the reserve list and one Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, who too was selected along with the petitioner, was placed in the merit list at No. 79, Shri Radhey sham Sharma was allotted for appointment in the office of the Director, Technical Education. whereas the petitioner was allotted to the office of the Principal, Flying School and later on, he was allotted in the office of the Director. Environment, Jaipur. Shri Radhey Sbyam Sharma was confirmed as LDC vide order dated 23rd May, 1988, whereas the petitioner who stood higher in the merit, in the reserve list, was not confirmed, though he was entitled to be confirmed. While the petitioner was so working as LDC, applications were invited for the post of Accountants/Junior Accountants/Tehsil-Revenue Accountants against the direct recruits, by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. As per the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules. 1963 (for short, the Rules of 1963), the petitioner was eligible for direct recruitment for the post of Junior Accountant Hence, in pursuance of the advertisement he applied for the post of Junior Accountant. His application was sent through proper channel. Initially, 500 posts of Junior Accountants were advertised, but later on the posts were increased to 750. The petitioner appeared in the examination. The petitioner was declared successful in the examination provisionally by letter dated 27th April, 1988, by which the result of the petitioner's examination was declared. He was directed to send a certificate that he is substantive in the Government of Rajasthan. It was also mentioned in the letter, dated 27th April, 1988, that his provisional selection will be cancelled if be fails to submit the certificate upon 2nd May, 1989. From the result. it is evident that the petitioner stands in merit at Sr. No. 620. The petitioner approached respondent No. 1 to give him the requisite certificate. The petitioner was given a different certificate on 5th May, 1988. During this period, the petitioner made a representation to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission praying that since the matter is pending, hence his provisional appointment as Junior Accountant may not be cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that his provisional appointment as Junior Accountant has been cancelled only on the ground that the petitioner was not holding the post in the Government substantively The contention of the petitioner is that his appointment was substantive and cancellation of appointment of the petitioner, as aforesaid, was totally illegal.

3. Notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition contending that the petitioner was not substantively appointed as LDC in the department of the respondents. Therefore, he was not entitled to get the certificate to the effect that he is a substantive employee and, consequently, he was not appointed.

4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27th April, 1988 (Ex. 4) on various grounds. However, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of by resolving the main dispute as to whether the appointment of the










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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