LexRAM SARUP versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
0
D
E
F
G
H
•
734
,RAM SARUP
v.
-STATE OF BARY ANA & ORS.
May3, 1984
..
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD c;.J, D.P. MADON, AND RANGA NATH
f
MISRA, JJ.J
Panchayat Samitls, and Zilla Paris'1ads Act, 1961 a.r amended by Harayna
Ame1Jdment .Act of 1973 de!etiilg Section 33, Effect of-Whether af)y tzppointlizenf
made after the deletion of Section 33 valid effective.
rf
Section 33 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961
provided that subject to rules made by the Govetnment, a Panchayat Sariliti
may employ such ·servants as it n1ay consider necessary for the efficienrPerfor-
·mancc of the dufies imposed upon it by the Act,. i;ules or bye-laws.made there-
·unde( o~ by any other· law for the time beilig in force. The Punjab· Panchayat
Samitis and Zilla Parishads (Haryana Amendment Act, j973 which came into
force from June, 13, 1973', introduced extenSive ar!lendments. Section 33 of the
Act was deleted by Section 13 of the Amending Act, Sub section (4) of Section
14 the·Amending Act, provided that perso~s.empJoyed by a Panchayat Samiti
before April 4, 1973 and who .were in service .at the commecement of the
Amending Act, "shall colninue to serve on the. same terms and conditions on
which they "'ere employed by the· J>anchayat Samiti" until th.ey are absorbed in
the G.overnment Service· or retire in s~ch mannei as m.cy be prescribed. Section
. 35(1) of the Act empowers the State-Government to place at the disposa 1 of a
. Panchayat Samiti such of its servants as lrc required for the implementation of
the schemes annexed therewith and for such other duties and .fUnCtions as may
be assigned to then1 by the Panchayat Samitis from time to timee.
The appellant ·was appointed as a clerk on Julle I, 1963 by the Panchayat ·
Sarniti, Loharu; H·e .was confirmed. in that post in course of rime. On January
21,.1974, he was promoted as ·a Head Clerk lQn an adhoc basis. On March, 14
-1975 a resolution was passed by the Samitl regularising the post of Head Clerk.
On April 1, 1975, the appellant'·was · a·ppoioted
~:s a Head Cl.erk. Acting in
pursuance of the provision of Section 14(4) of the the Amending Act, the
Government of Haryana notified the absorption o_f the appellant-as 3. clerk.
though hC was worki'ng as a:Head Clerk' since January 21, 1974." B:ing aggriev~
ed the appellant filed a Writ Petition and prayed for il ·direction to absofb him
as a"Head Clerk .. The Writ Petition having been. dismis~ed by the High Court,
the appellanths filed this appeal by special leave;
Dismissing. the· appeal, the _Court,
HELD: LJ. The Panchayat Samiti had no right to appoint the appellant
to the post of H~ad Clerk on the date on Which it ·purported tQ dO so. As a
result of the <leletion of Section 33 of the Act by the Amending Act of 1973, the
\ .
•
••
RAM Si\RUP v. HARYANA (Chandrachud, C.J.)
735
Panchayat Samiti lost its. power to make appointment to the Parichayat. It
could not ther.efore have appointed the appellant as a Head Clefk, as it purport-
ed to d(}-so, in January,· 1974 on an adhoc basis or in April 1965 On a ,regular
basis. [737D]
, J .2. Though- the right to be considered. for promotion is a term and condi-
- tion of service, in the instant case, the_ appointment .of the appellant to the post
of·a Head CJerk being without the authority of law, the Government was nOt
bound to absorb him in. the post of a Head Clerk; He was appointed 1awfu1Jy
to the post of a clerk and that fs the p~st in which the Government' has absor-
bed him; [737C ; El
A
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1433 of
. c
1977
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order. dat~d
the !6th.February, 1977. of the Punj1b and Haryana High Court in
Civil Writ Petition No. 752 of 1977.
J.D. Jain & Mrs. Kawa/jit Kocher for the Appellant.
Harban.; Lai, l.S. Goel & R.N. Poddar for the Respondent.
•
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACl!UD, CJ. Section 33 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis
and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 ("The Act")" provided in so far as
relevant, that subject to rules made by the Government, a Pai:J.chayat
Samiti may employ such servants as it may consider ne.cessary for·
the efficient performance of the duties imposed upon it by the Act,
rules or bye-laws made thereunder or by any other law for the time·
being in force.
In p,ursuance of this power, the appellant was
appointed as a clerk on June 1, 1963 by the Panchayat Samiti,
Loharu, which Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.