Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 451 (PNJ)

Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab

2001-04-23

G.S.SINGHVI

body2001
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J. - This is a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to send the petitioners name for being allowed to appear in the departmental examination for the post of Naib Tehsildar. 2. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had joined service as Clerk under the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala (respondent No. 4) with effect from 21.1.1976. He was promoted as Senior Assistant with effect from 15.7.1996. In 1997, Director, Land Records, Punjab issued memo, Annexure P.1, dated 23.7.1997 to all the Divisional Commissioners to send the names of candidates willing to participate in the departmental examination proposed to be held on 23.8.1997 and from 26.8.1997 to 28.8.1997 at State Revenue Patwar Training Institute, Jalandhar. The petitioners name was recommended by respondent No. 4 to the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No. 2), but the latter withheld his name on the premise that he was not eligible. 3. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondents not to consider his candidature for being allowed to appear in the departmental examination by contending that the same is discriminatory and violative of his fundamental right to equality. He has referred to the order dated 17.7.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 13306 of 1993 - Harbans Lal and others v. State of Punjab and others and pleaded that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider him eligible for the departmental examination. 4. The respondents have controverted the petitioners claim on the premise that on the date of examination, he was working as Tehsil Assistant and as such, he was not considered eligible in terms of Regulation 7 of the Punjab Naib Tehsildars Regulations, 1984 (for short, the Regulations). 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order dated 17.7.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge In C.W.P. No. 13306 of 1993 - Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others. 6. Ms. Charu Tuli submitted that the petitioner was not considered eligible because at the relevant time, he was holding the post of Tehsil Assistant. 6. Ms. Charu Tuli submitted that the petitioner was not considered eligible because at the relevant time, he was holding the post of Tehsil Assistant. However, she conceded that the person junior to him in the cadre of Senior Assistants, namely, Shri Gurinder Singh was allowed to appear in the examination because at the relevant time, he was working as District Revenue Accountant in the office of respondent No. 4. 7. In our opinion, the submission of the learned Deputy Advocate General sounds attractive, but lacks merit. In Harbans Lals case (supra), the learned Single Judge held that regulation 7 was unconstitutional. The concluding portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under : "In view of the above, it is held that the provision of Regulation 7 in so far as it excludes the categories of Sub Divisional Accountants, Assistant Sub Divisional Accountants and Readers from the categories of persons eligible to appear in the examination is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In fact, this conclusion is also borne out from the clarification given by the Department itself vide its letter dated February 4, 1994, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.5 with the writ petition. Consequently, it is held that even those persons who are working as Sub Divisional Accountants, Assistant Sub Divisional Accountants, Readers to the Deputy Commissioner or the SDO shall be eligible to appear in the examination. Since the petitioners have already been permitted to appear in the examination held in February, 1994, the respondents shall declare their result immediately. In future, they will be entitled to appear in the examination and shall be entitled to the chances prescribed under the Regulations." In view of the above decision, the petitioner cannot be treated ineligible to take up the departmental examination, more-so because his junior in the cadre of Senior Assistants has been treated eligible and allowed to appear in the examination. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Keeping in view the fact that in pursuance of the interim order passed by the Court, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination, we direct the respondents to declare the result of his examination within a period of one month from the date of submission of certified copy of this order and give him all consequential benefits. Petition allowed.