LexRAJ KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. versus SHAKTI RAJ AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.
v.
SHAKTI RAJ AND ORS. ETC.
FEBRUARY 11, 1997.
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Service Law :
A
B
Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch). Patwaris State C
Service Class III Rules, 1955 (as modified by Government of Haryana
Notification dated 28,1.1970) :
Canal Patwaris-lrrigation Department of State of Haryana-Selec-
tion-Paragraph 6 of 1970 Notification provided that for appointment to all D
Class III posts, Subordinate Services Selection Board would be con-
sulted-Examinations conducted between 25th and 28th April, 1992 under
1955 Rules-After declaration of results, Government constituted a Selection
Committee which selected the appellants-{]nsuccessful candidates chal-
lenged the selection procedure by filing a writ petition before High Court which·
held constitution of Selection Committee and selection of appellants as ultra-
E
vires the power of Government-Held, after 1970 Notification came to be
issued to the extent of meth<>d and manner of selection of Canal Patwaris,
the 1955 Rules stood modified and the only competent authority to select the
candidates in SSSB-Govemment committed glaring illegalities in the proce-
dure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in
F
the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking the Selection of
Canal Patwaris out from the purview of the Board-Directions given to
Government and the Board to fallow the selection procedure and make
selections accordingly.
Excise Superintendent v. KB.N. Visweshwara Rao, [1996] 6 SCALE G
67 6, relied oli.
Madan Lal v. State of J & K, [1995] 3 SCC 486, Held inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 923 of
1997.
H
1159
1160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 1 S.C.R.
A
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.95 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 6816 of 1995.
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, K. Madhava Reddy,
Jitendra Sharma, Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ramesh Singh, Mrs.
Rakhi Ray, 'Uma Datta, R.C. Verma, B.S. Chahar, Jasbir Malik, Prem
B Malhotra, K.S. Chauhan, Ms. Gunwant Dara, Rajeshwar Singh, Ashok K.
c
Mahajan, M. Qamaruddin, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Gian Singh, S.C. Patel,
Pawan Kumar Bahl, M.M. Kashyap, Balraj Dewan, R.S. Kataria, R.K.
Maheshwari, R.K. Khanna, D.B. Vohra, Ranbir Yadav and N.S. Bisht for
the appearing parties.
N.P.S. Panwar and S.N. Bhat for Intervenor.
In-person for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
D Civil Appeal No. 923 of 1997, with Civil Appeal No. 924,..!J.25-984 of 1997
and In SLP (C) Nos. 8221-82 And 10357/96
Mr. R.C. Verma, learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw these
petitions. They are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
E !11 CA Nos. 923-984197
F
G
@ SLP (C) Nos. 4151, 4694 and 4702-4761/96:
Application for intervention is allowed.
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsi;l on both sides.
These appeals by special leave arise from Division Bench judgment
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on December 20, 1995 in CWP
No. 6816 of 1995 and batch.
The admitted facts are that the posts of Canal Patwaris in the
Irrigation Department of the State of Haryana are class III posts in the
State service. Earlier, they were called Irrigation Booking Clerks and came
to be designated as Patwaris in 1981. Prior to the formation of the State of
Haryana on November 1, 1966, the recruitment of Canal Patwaris was
H governed by the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch)
,.
RAJ KR. v. SHAKTI RAJ
1161
Patwaris State Service, Class Ill Rules, 1955 (for short, '1955 Rules') issued A
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 2(i) defines
"Apprentice Patwari" to mean a person who after passing the patwari
examination is posted as a reserve against 7% of the limiting ·scale of
Patwaris sanctioned for a circle. Rule 4 prescribes conditions for ap-
pointment to the service. Rule 5 postulates that no person shall be
accepted as a candidate Patwari who is less than 18 years or more than B
22 years (now 25 years) of age at the time of acceptance (proviso being
not relevant, omitted). Rule 6 envisages that "No person shall be ap-
pointed to the Service unless he has passed the Matriculation or School
Leaving Certificate Examination of a recognised university or its
equivalent, but preference shall be given to candidates possessing higher
qualifications" (proviso is nExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.