A Screening Committee entrusted with the duty of determining the suitability of a Government servant for absorption in Service must afford the employee concerned an opportunity to appear before it and clear up the position with regard to any adverse material existing against him in the service record.

1. - In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shri - Yashwant Kumar, has challenged the validity of the order dated October 14, 1974, passed by the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, whereby the petitioner had been reverted from the post of Excise Inspector, Grade II to the post of Lower Division Clerk.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk In the Department of Excise of the Government of Rajasthan on February 21, 1956 By order dated March 1, 1968, he was promoted to the post of Prosecuting Inspector (Excise) for a period of three months He continued to hold the said post till January 3, 1972, when by order dated January 1, 1972 he was transferred to the post of Excise Inspector, Jahajpur. The petitioner was thereafter posted at various places either as Prosecuting Inspector (Excise) or as Excise Inspector. On June 6, 1974, the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as' the Rules,), made by the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, were published in the Gazette. The Rules provide for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service (General Branch), (herein-after referred to as' the Service'). The Service included the posts of Inspector of Excise Grade I, Inspector of Excise Grade II and Assistant Public Prosecutor of Excise. Rule 6 provides for recruitment to the Service and in clause (iii) of the first proviso to Rule 6, a provision was made with regard to the absorption in the Service of persons who were appointed to the posts included in the Schedule in ad hoc/ officiating/temporary basis before January 1, 1972 and who were working as such on the date the Rules came into force, being screened by a Committee referred to in Rule 24 for adjudging their suitability on the posts held by them. In accordance with the Rules, a Screening Committee was constituted. The petitioner was however, not selected by the Screening Committee and on the basis of the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the order dated October 14, 1974, was passed whereby the petitioner was reverted from the pest of Excise Inspector, Gr. II to the post of Lower Division Clerk. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Shri M. Mridul, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following contentions in support of the writ petition:

(1) While adjudging the suitability of the petitioner for absorption in the Service, it was incumbent upon Screening Committee constituted under the Rules to afford a perscual hearing to the petitioner and the Screening Committee arrived at its decision with regard to the unsuitability of the petitioner without affording such an opportunity to the petitioner.

(2) The recommendation of the Selection Committee with regard the unsuitability of the petitioner for being appointed to the Service are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as persons less meritorious than the petitioner and whose Service Record was much inferior than that of the petitioner have been adjudged as suitable while the petitioner has been found unsuitable.

(3) The Screening Committee has found the petitioner unsuitable for appointment to the Service on the basis of the entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner and said entries were made mala fide,

(4) Respondents No. 4 to 9 who have been adjudged as suitable for absorption by the Screening Committee were not eligible for being considered under Rule 6 of the Rules in as much as they did not possess the requisite qualifications for being considered for appointment to the Service.

4. In support of his first contention that it was incumbent upon the Screening Committee to have afforded to the petitioner personal hearing before arriving