Eligibility for limited direct recruitment under promotion rules strictly per cut-off date in advertisement/rules; part-time/contingent services not countable unless specified; mere test qualification and recommendation confer no indefeasible appointment right if ineligible.

JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4471 of 2014, which was transferred to Learned State Administrative Tribunal ; and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No. 4369 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i). That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the Rule or Clause 11(1) of “The H.P. Govt. of Personnel, Clerk, Class III (Non- Gazetted) Common direct Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2011, whereby the eligibility criteria for the 20% quota under limited Direct Recruitment has been fixed to the extent that ‘Five years regular service or regular combined with continuous service rendered on daily wages or contract basis”, as null and void being ultra vires.

(ii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner as Clerk on the basis of test/result sheet which was conducted by the respondents on 18.02.2012 and 29.06.2013.

(iii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the whole services period of the petitioner as regular services which he has rendered in the Education Department w.e.f. 06.10.2000 to till this date as part time water carrier, whole time contingent worker as well as regular services for the purpose of his appointment as Clerk and keeping in view of this, the recommendations of the Respondent No.4 be accepted in the interest of justice.

(iv). That the respondents may kindly be directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of clerk from the date the similarly situated persons have been appointed with all consequential benefits including seniority.”

2. At the very outset, Learned Counsel, on Instructions, states that petitioner does not press prayer no 14(i), laying a challenge to Clause 11(i) of Recruitment and Promotion Rules in the instant proceedings. [Statement Taken on Record].

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that he is 10+2 and has passed M.A. [Political Science] as per Annexures P-6 and P-7 and he was initially appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Education Department on 06.10.2000 and he served as a Part Time Worker for 9 years, 8 months and 27 days till 22.07.2010 [Annexure P-1]. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Whole Time Contingent Worker w.e.f. 22.07.2010 [Annexure P-1] and he worked as such for 1 year 18 days till 10.08.2011. The petitioner was regularized as Peon, Class-IV, in Education Department on 10.08.2011 [Annexure P-3]. It is averred that the Respondent No 4-Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board [Now Rajya Chayan Ayog Hamirpur] issued an Advertisement on 14.11.2011 [Annexure P-4] for filling 773 posts of Clerks under 20% Limited Direct Recruitment Quota, by inviting applications latest by 13.12.2011.

3(i). Pursuant to the advertisement, petitioner applied for the post and he appeared in written test on 18.03.2012 and after qualifying the written test, the petitioner passed the typing test on 08.09.2012 and after qualifying the typing test, though the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment on 23.08.2012 [Annexure P-9], by the Respondent-Board but despite recommendation, the petitioner was not appointed whereas other incumbents who faced the same selection were recommended and appointed as Clerk under Limited Direct Recruitment, over and above the petitioner and the actio