Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1848
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Joginder Sharma And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 8502 of 2017, 7676 of 2017, 8640 of 2017, 16288 of 2019, 24738 of 2019, 24973 of 2019, 25833 of 2019
Decided On : 13-11-2019
Rajiv Atma Ram, Adv., Parveen Gupta, Adv., Pawan Kumar, Adv., V.K. Jindal, Adv., Gopal Soni, Adv., Sudhir Rana, Adv., Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Adv., Shiv Kumar Sharma, Adv., Samarth Sagar, Adv., Kanwal Goyal, Adv., Gurminder Singh, Adv., R.P.S. Bara, Adv., Sumit Jain, Adv., Sandeep Yadav, Adv., Vipin Yadav, Adv., Sajjan Singh, Adv.
The amendment to Rule 9 of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, which included service rendered as Naib Tehsildar in computing the eight years government service for recruitment to HCS (EB) in Register A-1, was found to be justified and not arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Headnote:
amendment - Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) - Rule 9 of 2008 Rules, Rule 9 as amended in 2017 - The judgment discusses the amendment to Rule 9 of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, which included service rendered as Naib Tehsildar in computing the eight years government service for recruitment to HCS (EB) in Register A-1. The court considered the arguments of the petitioners that the amendment treated unequals as equals and nullified a previous judgment. The State justified the amendment by stating that the powers and duties of Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars are similar and that the zone of consideration was not sufficient with the existing provision. The court referred to various Supreme Court cases to support the validity of the amendment, concluding that it was not arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the notification dated 16.02.2017, which amended Rule 9 (1)(a)(i) of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, to include service rendered as Naib Tehsildar in computing the eight years government service for recruitment to HCS (EB) in Register A-1. They argued that the amendment treated unequals as equals and nullified a previous judgment. The State justified the amendment by stating that the powers and duties of Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars are similar and that the zone of consideration was not sufficient with the existing provision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment was not arbitrary and unconstitutional, as it was justified by the similarity in the powers and duties of Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars and the insufficiency of the zone of consideration with the existing provision. The court also dismissed the relevance of a previous judgment interpreting the un-amended Rule 9, as the Rule had been amended in 2017.
Issues: The issues raised in the case were the validity of the amendment to Rule 9 of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, and its impact on the recruitment to HCS (EB) from Register A-1.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the justification provided by the State for the amendment, the similarity in the powers and duties of Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars, and the insufficiency of the zone of consideration with the existing provision. The court also dismissed the relevance of a previous judgment interpreting the un-amended Rule 9, as the Rule had been amended in 2017.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the arguments raised by the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - This judgment shall dispose of seven writ petitions namely CWP No.7676 of 2017, CWP No.8502 of 2017, CWP No.8640 of 2017, CWP No.16288 of 2019, CWP No.24738 of 2019, CWP No.24973 of 2019 and CWP No.25833 of 2019 as the issues raised therein are identical.
2. However, the facts are being referred from CWP No.8502 of 2017.
3. This petition has been filed praying for directions to quash the notification dated 16.02.2017 to the extent of amendments made in Rule 9 (1)(a)(i) of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 (herein for short 'the 2008 Rules'), whereby those with eight years continuous government service as District Revenue Officer/ Tehsildar including service rendered as Naib Tehsildar, have been made eligible for consideration for inclusion in Register A-1. The petitioners have also sought quashing of circular dated 12.04.2017 issued by the respondent No. 1 inviting lists of eligible District Revenue Officers/ Tehsildars for filling 09 vacancies of HCS (Executive Branch) from Register A-1 containing the stipulation that 08 years continuous government service includes the service rendered as Naib Tehsildar.
4. The primary contention of the petitioners is that as per the Haryana Civil Services (EB) Rules, 2008 prior to the impugned amendment for appointment to HCS(EB) under Register A-1 the eligibility was eight years regular Government Service as District Revenue Officer/Tehsildars. The 2017 amendment by including service rendered as Naib Tehsildar along with service as District Revenue Officer/Tehsildar in the eight years government service required for eligibility for selection for Register A-1 is arbitrary and unconstitutional for the vice of treating unequals as equals. It is contended that the post of Naib Tehsildar is different and of a lower cadre than District Revenue Officer/Tehsildars. A Naib Tehsildar works under the Tehsildar and the cadre of Naib Tehsildar serves as feeder cadre for the post of Tehsildar. The combined service of eight years as Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars cannot be equated with eight years of service as Tehsildar. The arbitrariness is sought to be emphasized by contending that by virtue of the amendment a Naib Tehsildar who may have worked as Tehsildar even for a single day would become entitled to consideration for appointment to HCS(EB) under Register A-1 at par with a person who has worked as Tehsildar for eight years. It was also argued that the amendment has the effect of nullifying a judgment of this court in CWP No.21845 of 2015 titled Vijay Kumar Yadav and another vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 22.12.2015, wherein, interpreting the provisions of Rule 9(1)(a)(i) of the 2008 Rules it has been held that the government service as contemplated therein relates to the posts which have been specified in the main Rule 9 i.e., District Revenue Officers and Tehsildars. It cannot mean any other post than the said two posts. The contention of the petitioners therein that experience as Naib Tehsildar should be considered as experience within the meaning of Rule 9(1)(a)(i) was rejected. It was thus argued that the amendment was illegal and impermissible.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the Government is empowered to make Rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the HCS(EB). Before 13.02.2008 the State Civil Service was governed by Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 (for short "1930 Rules"). In those Rules, Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars were eligible be considered for recruitment to HCS(EB) from Register A-1. The 1930 Rules were repealed by the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 (for short "2008 Rules") w.e.f. 13.02.2008. As per these Rules District Revenue Officers/Tehsildars were made eligible to be considered for the recruitment to HCS(EB) from Register A-1. Now, vide notification dated 16.02.2017, experience/se
