(EX) CAPT. RANDHIR SINGH DHULL versus S. D. BHAMBRI & OTHERS

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 02-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
) 
55 
(EX) CAPT. RANDHIR SINGH DHULL 
v. 
S. D. BHAMBRI & OTHERS 
March 2, 1981 
[R. S. PATHAK, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] 
Punjab Tahsildari Rules 1932, Rules 5 and II and Standing Order Na. 12 
of 1909, Part A, Para 4(1) and Punjab Emergency (Concession) Rules 1965, Rules 
2 and 4(ii)-Class 'A' Tahsildar-Recruitment-Candidates initially 'accepted' 
and thereafter 'appointed'-Seniority-Determined by date of substantive appoint-
ment in the post-Military service rendered by a candidate-Concession in senio-
rity-When admissible. 
Standing Order No. 12 of 1909 (Part A) provides for.two classes of Tahsildar 
candidates (1) class 'A' (or direct) and (2) class 'B'. Para 4 (1) of the Standing 
Order read with the Punjab Tahsildari Rules 1932 provides that candidates are 
required to undergo training for a period of three years in the case of class 'A' 
direct recruits. In addition to the completion of training a candidate is required 
to pass a qualifying departmental examination before he is eligible to be appornted 
to the post of Tahsildar, temporary or permanent. 
Initially, a tahsildar candidate is not enrolled against any post, nor is he 
appointed against any vacancy but is appointed against vacancies after completing 
the training and passing the examination held. After appointment to the post of 
tahsildar, the officer has to be on probation for a period of two years under Rule 
10 of the Tahsildari Rules. Rule 11 provides that the seniority of members of the 
service shall be determined by the date of substantive appointment in the post. 
The Punjab Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 provides by sub-rule (ii) of 
Rule 4 that the period of 'military service' shall be taken into consideration for 
the purpose of determining the seniority of a person who has rendered military 
service. 
The petitioner in his writ petition contended, that he appeared in the 
class 'A' Tahsildar 
candidate Haryana Civil 
Services (Executive Branch) 
Services 
Examination 1972-73 
and was accepted as 'A' Class Tahsil<lar 
candidate on September 13, 1974 and joined the civil post with effect from 
September 26, 1974. After completing the training he was appointed to the post 
on January 3, 1978. He approached respondent No. 1 under Rule 4(1) and (ii) 
of the Punjab Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 and requested that the mili-
tary service rendered by him from 1963 to 1974 except for the P.eriod from July 2, 
1968 to October 13, 1968 be tagged on to his services with effect from September 
26, 1974 for the purpose of his seniority, increments, promotion, pensions etc. 
and that respondent No. l did not give this facility though it was accorded to 
other respondents, and that the promotion of respondents Nos. 3 to 18 who were 
junior to him had violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
The first respondent claimed that the petitioner was accepted as class 'A' 
Tahsildar candidate on 13th September, 1974 and that he had qualified himself 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 3 s.c.R. 
A 
for the post of Tahsildar after he had completed the prescribed training and 
successfully qualified in the departmental examination and that he was appointed 
as Tahsildar by the order dated January 3, 1978. As the petitioner had been in 
service in the Armed Forces from April 29, 1963 to January 10, 1968 on which 
day termination of the Emergency was declared, the petitioner was given the bene-
fit of the service and his seniority was fixed as on May 26, 1973 in accordance 
with the provisions of Rule 4, sub-clause (ii) read with Rule 2 of the Punjab 
B 
Emergency (Concession) Rules 1965. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Dismissing the petition, 
HELD : 1. The petitioner was not appointed to but accepted as a candi-
date for the post of Tahsildar. [63 D] 
In the instant case a perusal of the letter of appointment Annexure P-S 
alongwith sub-rules 2 and 3 of Rules S and 11 of the Tahsildari Rules shows that 
the petitioner was merely accepted as a candidate for the post of Tahsildar. It 
is mentioned therein that the terms and conditions of the service namely training, 
passing of departmental examination, and probation are to be governed by the 
Tahsildari Rules and Standing Order No. 12 as amended from time to time. A 
candidate had to fulfil the said terms and conditions mentioned before his 
appointment to the post of Tahsildar. [62 H-63 D] 
2. 
The petitioner's substantive appointment was by order dated January 3, 
1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.