Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 360 (HP)

RUMAL SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-12-30

BAKHSHISH KAUR, D.S.AMIST

body2004
JUDGEMENT Mrs. Bakhshish Kaur, J (Retd.), Chairman.: Shri Rumal Singh, applicant was appointed as a Clerk on February 28, 1981. He belongs to a category of schedule tribe. The respondents had circulated seniority list Annexure A-2 as it stood on December 31, 1983. Though the applicant was assigned appropriate place in the seniority list yet in the remarks column his status of tribe category was not shown. He represented to the competent authority against such omission. 2. Again seniority list of Clerks in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba as it stood on December 31, 1987 was circulated which is Annexure A-3. However, in the remarks column, it was not reflected that he belongs to scheduled tribe. The applicant is mainly aggrieved by the impugned orders Annexure A-10 and A-12, therefore, he has filed this original application seeking following reliefs:- "a. That the impugned orders Annexure A-10 and A-12 may be quashed and set-aside. b. That the applicant may be declared to belong to the category of Scheduled Tribe as per certificate issued by the competent authority. c. That the record of the case may kindly be summoned for the perusal of this Honble Court. d. That the cost of the application may awarded to the applicant. e. Any other order deemed just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant and against respondents, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. The respondents No.1 to 3 in their joint reply have not admitted that the applicant belongs to category of scheduled tribe. In fact only those categories of residents of tribal area of Bharmour are treated as scheduled tribe who have been recorded in the revenue records. It is, however, admitted that the applicant belongs to Gaddi Sippi category. The impugned orders, according to the respondents, are legal and therefore, original application is liable to be dismissed. 4. Sh. Tilak Raj, respondent No.4 by way of filing separate reply has resisted the original application. It is averred that the applicant does not belong to Gaddi category but he belongs to Sippi caste which has been approved as scheduled category. The appointment of applicant as a Clerk was made against scheduled Caste category. Even at the time of his appointment he had submitted a certificate of Scheduled Caste category In which Sippi caste has been mentioned and the word Gaddi and tribe are cross-marked. The appointment of applicant as a Clerk was made against scheduled Caste category. Even at the time of his appointment he had submitted a certificate of Scheduled Caste category In which Sippi caste has been mentioned and the word Gaddi and tribe are cross-marked. It is further averred that he had filed a petition before the Divisional Commissioner, challenging office order dated May 30, 1992 whereby his representation was rejected by Deputy Commissioner, Chamba. The Divisional Commissioner had accepted the representation and respondent No.3 was directed to show the applicant Rumal Singh as scheduled caste in the seniority list and the entries corrected as on May 8, 1985 may be restored to its original state. Copy of order is Annexure R-1. It is the applicant who got his entries changed from scheduled caste (hereinafter referred as S.C.) to scheduled tribe (in short the ST.) in the service book after a years which was challenged by the answering respondent No.4. 5. We have heard Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Chirag B. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sh. Virender Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4. 6. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the name of applicant was registered in Employment Exchange, Bharmour vide Registration No.90/1978 dated July 1, 1978 in the ST category. His name was sponsored for the post of Clerk from the ST category. A copy of ST certificate is Annexure A-14 which was appended to the original application and this fact is also evident from the seniority list Annexures A-2 and A-3 which amply demonstrate that no category of applicant has been shown in the seniority list whereas specific category has been shown against the other persons. The appointment of the applicant as a clerk on Feb. 28, 1981 was made against ST category. 7. Mrs.Ranjana Parmar, further contended that though the applicant was shown in proper place, but as regards his status, tribal category was not shown by the competent authority. Aggrieved by this act of the respondents the applicant represented to the competent authority which was accepted by Deputy Commissioner, Chamba and tentative seniority list of clerk by Deputy Commissioner office up to 1991 was circulated in accordance with departmental promotion committee held on 3.11.1992. Aggrieved by this act of the respondents the applicant represented to the competent authority which was accepted by Deputy Commissioner, Chamba and tentative seniority list of clerk by Deputy Commissioner office up to 1991 was circulated in accordance with departmental promotion committee held on 3.11.1992. The applicant junior clerk was promoted as Senior Assistant vide order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, Annexure A-8/9 dated 13.11.1992. 8. Sh. Tilak Raj, respondent No.4 had preferred petition against order dated 30.5.1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba vide which he had rejected his application regarding his seniority. The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra vide order dated 25.11.1992, Annexure A-10/11 had allowed his petition. The Divisional Commissioner had observed that the applicant has got appointment on the basis of ST category and he had joined his duty in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba on 7.3.1991. At the time of his appointment whatever certificates he has submitted according to that he has stated to be belonging to SC Category and on the basis of this entry was made in the service book. Later on in the year 1983 after getting the certificate of SC category he requested for amendment in the service record which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner on 8.5.1989. He was, therefore, of the opinion that he got appointment on the basis of Schedule Caste certificate and observed as under- "It is clear from the H.P. Govt. (Personal Deptt) R-II) which contains reservation instructions book under chapter XIII for Sch.Caste/Sch. Tribe/Backward Classes members of the society that "Any persons once allowed reservation as schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe as the case may be, at the time of initial recruitment, will continue to be so throughout his service and any claim contrary to the above will be rejected. The reservation granted to any person at the time of his appointment will continue throughout his service. Therefore, the request made by Sh. Rumal Singh from time to time that he should be shown against scheduled tribe category should have been rejected". 9. The (act that the applicant was appointed against SC category is further affirmed by well reasoned finding recorded by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary in rejecting the appeal preferred by Sh. Rumal Singh against the order passed by Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue). The observation made by the appellate authority is also relevant for the purpose of decision of the case which reads as under:- "Sh. Rumal Singh against the order passed by Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue). The observation made by the appellate authority is also relevant for the purpose of decision of the case which reads as under:- "Sh. Rumal Singh had also requested to Deputy Commissioner Chamba that in his service book the correction of S.T. in place of S.C. may be done and the Deputy Commissioner Chamba on 10.5.1989 corrected made entry in the service bode by replacing the entry of ST. in place of S.C. by ignoring the instructions relating to reservation. The roster register maintained in the office of the Deputy Commissioner Chamba was seen. In this register the name of Shri Rumal Singh has been shown mentioned in 3/81 against such. Tribe (I.R.D.P.); whereas the Deputy Commissioner Chamba made the correction in the service book of Sh. Rumal Sing for his belonging to Sch. tribe category on 10.5.1989. In this way the roster register of Deputy Commissioner Chamba shows that the appointment of Sh. Rumal Singh was made during the year 1981 against the reserved post of Sch. Tribe (I.R.D.P.) which is wrong because the reservation for I.R.D.P. families was given by the Govt. during the year 1985." 10. In view of the concurrent finding by the competent authorities by passing well reasoned order as above and the circumstances under which the appointment of Rumal Singh was made against the post of scheduled Caste (IRDP) which is held to be wrong because the preference to IRDP family was given during 1985 whereas appointment was made in 1981 does not call for any interference. Rather it has become clear that he got appointment on the basis of scheduled Caste certificate produced by him. Above being the position, this original application is dismissed with no order as to costs.