Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 288 (JK)

Mohd. Ismail v. State Of J. &K.

2000-12-11

O.P.SHARMA

body2000
1. The facts of this case in brief are these:- The petitioners were selected for appointment as Officiating Sub-Inspectors (Urdu Shorthand Reporters) subject to the condition that they successfully complete and qualify in Urdu Stenography course of six months duration from Grewals College, Ludhiana. The order of their appointment was issued by respondent No.2 on 31.07.1979. They completed the course from Grewals College Ludhiana and were relieved on 20.02.1981. After they reported for duty, respondent No.2 vide order dated 21.04.1980 directed that their practical working with regard to their actual proficiency in urdu Stenography will be tested after six months. Vide order dated: 03.01.1981 they were reverted to the post of Head Constable because they were not found proficient in Urdu Stenography. It is this order which is impugned by the petitioners, on the following grounds:- 2. That they were promoted subject to successfully completing the Urdu Stenography course of six months duration from Grewals College, Ludhiana which they completed, 3. Since the order did not contain any stipulation that they will have to appear in any examination, their reversion was bad. 4. The respondents have admitted that the petitioners had successfully completed the Urdu Stenography course and obtained diploma from Grewals College, Ludhiana. But their stand is that this was not sufficient for promotion. They had to further prove their proficiency, because the promotion was officiating. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The order of promotion dated: 31.07.1979 passed by respondent No.2 reveals that both of them were selected as Sub-Inspectors (Urdu Shorthand Reporters) by the Board of officers. They were provisionally selected for appointment as officiating Sub-Inspectors "subject to the condition that they successfully complete and qualify in urdu Stenography Course of six months duration from Grewals College, Ludhiana. As per certificate issued by the Principal, Grewals College Ludhiana, dated: 20.02.1980 both of them completed the course. In the counter filed by respondents, it is admitted that they had successfully completed the course and diploma was issued by the Institute in their favour. Vide order dated: 21.04.1980 respondent No.2 subjected their appointment to further test. Para 2 and 3 of this order reads as under:- "Vide this office order No.524 of 1979 dated, 31st July 1979 Head Constables Poshker Nath Dhar No.870/CID and Mohd. Vide order dated: 21.04.1980 respondent No.2 subjected their appointment to further test. Para 2 and 3 of this order reads as under:- "Vide this office order No.524 of 1979 dated, 31st July 1979 Head Constables Poshker Nath Dhar No.870/CID and Mohd. Ismail No.210/CID were provisionally selected for appointment as officiating Sub-Inspectors (Urdu Shorthand Reporters) subject to the condition that they successfully complete and qualify in Urdu Stenography course for six months duration from the Grewals College, Ludhiana. 2. They were relieved by the Principal Grewals College, Ludhiana on 19th Feb. 1980 on completion of urdu Shorthand Course. The certificates issued by the principal Grewals College reveal that both of them have attained speed of 100 words per minute and could improve further. 3. Both these Head Constables who have reported in this office after completing the said course shall be deemed to be officiating Sub-Inspectors (Urdu Shorthand Reporters) with effect from the date of this order. However, they will be tested after six months of practical working with regard to their actual proficiency in Urdu Stenography and only thereafter their continuance/confirmation will be considered. 4. They are attached with the S.P.CID SD Kashmir against two vacancies of urdu Shorthand Reporters. The SP CID SBK will put them on urdu Shorthand Reporting duties so that they take up the work and gain necessary proficiency." 6. It appears they were put to test but failed. This is evident from the order dated: 03.01.1981 which reads as under: - "Head Constables Pushker Nath Dhar No.870/CID and Mohd.IsmailNo.210/CID who were ordered to be deemed as officiating Sub-Inspectors (Urdu Shorthand Reporters) vide this office order No: 269 of 1980 dated: 21.04.1980 for a period of six months having not been found proficient in urdu Stenography, continuance to their being treated as such is not accorded as was required under the said order. They should be deemed to be HCs and are adjusted in Special Branch Kashmir. However, they can again appear in the proficiency test after six months." 7. It is this order which is challenged in the petition. A plain reading of the order dated: 31.07.1979 makes it clear that the officiating appointment of the petitioners was subject only to their successfully completing Urdu Stenography course of six months duration from Grewals College, Ludhiana. This they completed successfully as admitted. It is this order which is challenged in the petition. A plain reading of the order dated: 31.07.1979 makes it clear that the officiating appointment of the petitioners was subject only to their successfully completing Urdu Stenography course of six months duration from Grewals College, Ludhiana. This they completed successfully as admitted. This order further shows that they were selected by a Board of Officers as Sub-Inspectors (Urdu Shorthand Reporters). Since this order was not subject to any other proficiency test, the order dated:21.04.1980 was without jurisdiction, as there was no such condition imposed to the order of their selection/appointment. This new condition could not have been imposed. Moreover, the officiating appointment was not subject to the petitioners qualifying in the internal proficiency test to be held by the department. Further, the order of reversion gives them a chance to appear again after six months, though it should have been that their confirmation would be subject to their successfully completing the test. It is like imposing the punishment before giving a person opportunity to defend himself. The order dated: 03.01.1981, therefore us bad because the order of appointment of the petitioners was not subject to their qualifying in the proficiency test. It is quashed accordingly and the petitioners shall be deemed to have been substantively appointed.