ORDER R.S. Shukla The appellant patwari was ousted from service by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 7-11-55. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Hence this second appeal. The facts of the case have to be stated at some length. The appellant was appointed patwari on 5-10-44 but was ousted on 8-4-52 on the ground that he had not passed his departmental examinations within the prescribed period. He was, however, re-employed on 17-1-53 and re-ousted on 7-6-54, again, on the ground that he was not fully qualified as he had not passed the two departmental examinations in time, i.e. within three years of his first appearance. He was again employed but this date of re-employment is not available from the record of the case. For the last time he was ousted on 7-11-55 by the Sub-Divisional Officer. This order has now been challenged in the present appeal. The various changes in the service of the appellant may be stated in chronological order :- According to rule 4 (ii) of Land Records Manual, Vol. 1 (unamended) or rule 6 (2) (amended) a patwari candidate must pass the whole examination within a period of three years of his appointment. This condition may be relaxed by the Director of Land Records in favour of a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as defined in the Constitution only on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner. The whole examination is in two parts, viz., (i) Survey and (ii) Manual. The appellant passed Part I in 1948 and Part II in 1952. The ousting order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is in the form of a posting order, ousting the appellant to give place to one Hari Prasad patwari who had been reinstated after a certain period of suspension. The relevant portion of the posting order is as follows: On relief by patwari Hari Prasad Soni, patwari Jalal Singh (appellant), P. C. No. 3, Revenue Inspector's Circle Pagara is ousted, being not fully qualified. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner used a very curious argument in upholding the Sub-Divisional Officer's ousting order. His reasoning may be quoted in his own words. "I find that my predecessor Shri Bangale, the then Deputy Commissioner, Chhindwara, had already decided the appeal of the patwari on 6-9-54. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner used a very curious argument in upholding the Sub-Divisional Officer's ousting order. His reasoning may be quoted in his own words. "I find that my predecessor Shri Bangale, the then Deputy Commissioner, Chhindwara, had already decided the appeal of the patwari on 6-9-54. In his order he has held that the appellant patwari was not fully qualified and his order of removal was therefore perfectly correct. In view of this the Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 17-10-55 (wrongly given) ousting the patwari from service and replacing him by a qualified candidate cannot be interfered with. The present appeal is also dismissed." In the first place the reference to Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 17-10-55 is incorrect. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 17-10-55 has nothing whatsoever to do with the appellant. It relates to the removal of Hari Prasad patwari. It is surprising that such" ugly mistake should occur in the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Any way, what is worse is the reference to Shri Bangale's order dated 6-9-54 which is wholly irrelevant and even prejudicial to the appellant. I need not comment on the propriety of Shri Bangale's order, as the same is not the subject-matter of the present appeal. The various services periods of the appellant given in para. 2 above would show, that he was reemployed after Shri Bangale's order although the exact date has not been available to me. Quite obviously, the date of re-employment must fall between the period 27-6-54 (when he was ousted) and 7-11-55 (when he was re-ousted by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer leading to this appeal). The patwari having passed both the parts of his examination by 1952, it is apparent that he was fully qualified on 7-11-55 the date on which he was ousted by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The learned Deputy Commissioner entirely lost sight of the fact that the Land Records Manual was amended by Government Notification No. 106 /XV, dated 10-2-55. This amendment appears as Amendment No. 19, dated 7-4-55, in the said Manual. The learned Deputy Commissioner entirely lost sight of the fact that the Land Records Manual was amended by Government Notification No. 106 /XV, dated 10-2-55. This amendment appears as Amendment No. 19, dated 7-4-55, in the said Manual. Before the amendment i e. between the period November 53 to April'55 the position was that a candidate patwari was bound to pass "in all subjects at any one attempt or by compartment provided he passes in all the subjects of the examination within a period of three years from the date on which he first appears at it [Rule 6 (1)] During this period of three years, however, a candidate patwari could be ousted "as soon as a candidate who has passed the examination and whose name is brought on the approved list is available for appointment". By amendment dated 7-4-55, rule 6 (1) was amended and the Sub-Divisional Officer was authorised to appoint as patwari even a person who had not passed the patwari examination. But sub-rule (2) of rule 6 provided that: 6 (2). If any person appointed under sub-rule (1) fails to pass the prescribed examination within three years of his appointment he shall be ousted. The underlined portions of the above rules, when compared, would show that before April 55 passing of the whole examination was compulsory within three years from the date on which a candidate first appeared at it while after 7-4-55, the prescribed examination had got to be passed within three years of his appointment. As pointed out above, before the last ouster (7-11-55) the appellant had passed both the examinations. Therefore, at the time of ousting him, it could not be said that he was disqualified as he had not passed his examinations within three years of his appointment. In fact, he was already qualified and was not called upon to pass any examinations assuming that at some point of time in the past he was not fully qualified. Whatever may have been the facts at the" time of Shri Bangale, it is clear beyond doubt that when the Sub-Divisional Officer came to pass the ousting order in question, the criterion applied by Shri Bangale was no longer applicable. The Sub-Divisional Officer's posting order is of a routine type and does not record the reasons for holding the appellant as "not fully qualified". The Sub-Divisional Officer's posting order is of a routine type and does not record the reasons for holding the appellant as "not fully qualified". But the reasoning as given by the learned Deputy Commissioner are wholly untenable. He seems to have argued that since the appellant had once, in the past, been held disqualified for not having passed the whole examination within three years from the date he first appeared at it, the disqualification became perpetual, and for all his life to come, the appellant must be held as "not fully qualified" in spite of his having passed both the examinations successfully by 1952. The learned Deputy Commissioner was not at all bound by what Shri Bangale had held. He was required only to satisfy himself whether on the date of his ousting the patwari was qualified or not, i.e. whether he had passed the whole examination or not. If he had not, all that the Deputy Commissioner could do was to allow him a period of three years to pass the prescribed examinations as per rule 6 (2). If, on the other hand, he had passed the examinations and was qualified he could not be ousted. The old rule 6 (2) of replacing a candidate-patwari as soon as a qualified person became available had become obsolete long before the day the Sub-Divisional Officer came to pass his order on 7-11-55. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, is, therefore, wholly incorrect, and it appears that he entirely failed to examine carefully the facts of the case or to draw correct inference there from. He equally failed to apply the legal provisions with the result that his findings are wrong both on facts and in law. For reasons given above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is quashed and it is directed that the appellant shall be treated as a person who was fully qualified on 7-11-55. It is now for the Collector of the district to give the appellant earliest opportunity for employment as patwari. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.