MOHINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 437 · Decided: 07-04-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

" 
.,. 
{ 
• 
-
+ 
-
" 
MOHINDER SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
APRIL 7, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Services: Haryana State-Recruitment to post of District 
Food anti Supplies Officer-Qualifications for-'Five/three years ex-
perience as an executive officer'-lnspector/Sub-Inspector in Food and-
Supplies Department-Whether 'executive officer' eligible 
Words and Phrases: 'Officer'-'Emp/oyee'-Meaning of. 
c 
The Haryana Public Service Commission advertised the filling'up 
of 4 posts of District Food and Supplies Officers by direct recruit-
ment, and prescribed "five/three years' experience as an executive 
officer" as one of the essential qualifications. The appellant who was 
D 
- working as Inspector/Sub-Inspector in the Food and Supplies Depart-
ment, applied for the post. Some other Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors also 
applied. Subsequently, the Special Secretary to the Haryana Govern-
ment in the Food and Supplies Department wrote to the Commission 
affirming, inter alia, that the work of Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors of his 
Department was of executive nature though they were not officers. The 
E 
Commission, however, required the appellants to produce a certificate 
from the State Government to the effect that they had the requisite 
experience of executive officer. The State Government did not issue 
such a certificate, and in its absence the Commission did not consider 
the Inspector and Sub-Inspector candidates as having the requisite 
qualification. 
F • 
Thereupon, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court 
claiming that he had the reqnisite qualification. The learned Single 
Judge dismissed the writ petition and the Division Bench dismissed the 
appeal therefrom. 
Before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
the post of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors belonged to the category of 
execntive office, and that in earlier years certain similarly sitnated 
Inspectors and Sub-In~pectors of the Department had been appointed 
-on that basis. 
437 
'G 
H 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, it was, 
B 
c 
D 
HELD: (1) It was conceded in the Department's letter to the 
Commission 
that the Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors held executive 
posts. [440B] 
(2) None of the parties has placed any definition of the term 
\--' 
'Officer' from any Haryana Statute. It is also not the contention of any 't· 
of the parties that the administrative orders gave a definition to the 
term. In such a situation, the common parlance meaning of 'officer' has 
to be accepted for the purpose of finding out whether Inspectors and 
Sub-Inspectors held the post of officer. [440F] 
(3) In service jurisprudence even ministerial employees have been 
~· 
referred to as officers. The terms 'Officer' and 'employee' put together 
obviously signify the grade of the establishment or post held, the officer 
being higher in grade to employee. [441G) 
( 4) A person i.nvested with the authority of an office has been 
treated as an officer. [441C-D] 
( 5) Keeping in view the nature and duty assigned to the Inspector 
or the Sub-Inspector working id the Department to whom powers have 
E been delegated, it cannot be doubted that the holders of posts of Ins-
pector and Sub-Inspector are officers. [441G-H] 
F 
G.A. Monterio v. The State of Ajmer, [1956) SCR 682 and 
Bajrang Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, [1976) 3 SCR 497, referred 
to. 
(6) The appellant was entitled to be considered for recruitment in 1980 
and since his claim had been over-looked without justification, the State 
and the Haryana Public Service Commission are bound to consider his 
case now on the basis that he was entitled to recruitment in 1980. In 
case the appellant is found qualified, he shall be selected for the post 
G and duly appointed. [442E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 294 
of 1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.1981 of the Punjab and 
H Haryana High Court in LP.A. 857of1981. 
-
-
-
MOHINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [MISRA, J.] 
439 
P.P. Rao, R. Venkataramani, U.G. Pragasan and S.M. Garg for 
A 
the Appellant. 
Mahabir Singh, .Subhash Sharma and C.M. Nayar for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal is by special leave and is 
directed against the appellate judgment of a Division Bench ··of the 
Pun jab and Haryan~ High Court upholding the decision of a learned 
Single Judge of that Court by dismissing the appea

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