Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1624 (PNJ)

Ram Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2006-04-24

M.M.KUMAR, M.M.S.BEDI

body2006
Judgment M. M. KUMAR and j. JJ. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing selection and appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of lecturer in Mathematics. It has also been prayed that the petitioner be considered for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer from the date respondent No.4 has been appointed, on the ground that respondent no.4 being a dependent of Ex-Serviceman has no right to that post and in any case an Ex-Serviceman like the petitioner has to be preferred over a dependent of Ex-Serviceman as per instructions dated 21.05.1979 (P-4)issued by the respondent State. 2. The primary argument of Mr. Ram Kumar Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.4 does not fall within the definition of dependent of Ex-serviceman. The aforementioned stand is sought to be buttressed by referring to two appointments of respondent No. 3. One appointment was granted to respondent No.4 in C. R. College, hisar from 13.7.2002 to 28.2.2003 (Annexure R-4/1 ). The aforementioned appointment was purely part-time and the salary to respondent No.4 used to be drawn from the college fund as there was no sanctioned post of lecturer of Mathematics in the aforementioned college. The second appointment of respondent No.4 has been highlighted on the basis of appointment letter Annexure P-7 in D. N. College, Hisar, which has been brought on record by way of a miscellaneous application. Again the appointment letter Annexure P-7 shows that respondent No.4 was working purely on temporary/part-time basis on a consolidated salary of Rs.5,000/-per month. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the instructions dated 21.11.1980 (P-5) issued by the respondent State. According to these instructions, persons mentioned at Sr. No. (i), (ii), (v)and (vi) would not fall within the definition of expression dependent because each of them would have some independent source of livelihood. The nature of employment and income of aforementioned persons is discernible from clauses (i), (ii), (v) and (vi), which read as under:- " (i) A person may be working on an adhoc basis against the post advertised or somewhere also. (ii) a person may be unemployed at the time of making the application but he may have other source of income viz. from agriculture, trade, property, bank balance etc. (ii) a person may be unemployed at the time of making the application but he may have other source of income viz. from agriculture, trade, property, bank balance etc. ; xxx XXX XXX XXX XXX xxx XXX XXX XXX XX (v) a person who is a member of the joint Hindu family and remains dependent upon the Karta till there is partition in the family or he ceases to be a member of the joint hindu family and is obliged to pass on all his income to the Karta and draws money for his subsistence from the pool of the joint Hindu family with the consent of the karta; (vi) a candidate who is a member of the Joint Hindu family is employed on adhoc basis but he is other wise dependent on his father;" 5. Having heard the learned counsel on the aforementioned issue. We regret our inability to accept the same. We are unable to accept the argument that respondent No.4 would not be covered by the definition of expression dependent because the nature of employment contemplated by clause (i) (supra) is adhoc against the post advertised. In both the cases where respondent No.4 was working as part-time, it has not been shown that the post was ever advertised and respondent No.4 was appointed after considering competing claims of all the persons available in the field. On the contrary, the nature of appointment of respondent No.4, as explained in his preliminary objection No.1, was that of a part-time lecturer in chhaju Ram Memorial Jat Post-Graduate College, Hisar and his salary used to be drawn out of the college fund as there was no sanctioned post of lecturer of Mathematics in that college. The position is somewhat similar with respect to other appointment as it emerges from letter Annexure p-7, which has been produced on record by the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the first submission made by the learned counsel. 6. Mr. Ram Kumar Malik, has further urged 0that according to the instructions dated 21.5.1979 (P-4) an Ex-Serviceman has to be preferred over a Dependent of Ex-Serviceman. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the first submission made by the learned counsel. 6. Mr. Ram Kumar Malik, has further urged 0that according to the instructions dated 21.5.1979 (P-4) an Ex-Serviceman has to be preferred over a Dependent of Ex-Serviceman. According to the learned counsel, the aforementioned instructions have been considered by HON BLE the Supreme Court in the case of Dilwan Singh and others V/s. State of haryana, 1996 SCC (Lands) 978, and it has been laid down that the ex-Serviceman and the dependent children of Ex-Serviceman are not to be considered together and, therefore, the illegality committed by respondent nos.1 and 2 is that they have called both the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 simultaneously for considering their claim for the post of lecturer in Mathematics. We are unable to subscribe to the view projected by Mr. Malik because the whole object of the instructions is to prefer ex-Serviceman over their dependent children. It does not necessarily imply that respondent No.4 and the petitioner could not be permitted to apply at the same time or interviewed simultaneously. It is unreasonable to expect that separate examination and interview has to be held for ex-serviceman and dependent of ex-servicemen. The instructions also make it clear that in case of non-availability of a suitable Ex-Serviceman the claim of the dependent of an Ex-Serviceman is required to be considered. The claim of the petitioner has been duly considered and he has not been found suitable by respondent No.3 i. e. Haryana Public Service Commission. The qualification of the petitioner is M. Sc. (Math) and M. Phil. The M. Phil. qualification has been acquired by him in 1993, which is anterior to the cut off date of 19.9.1991 as decided by University Grants Commission. It is m. Phil. degree acquired before 1991, which has been treated as equivalent to UGC (NET) Examination. In other words, M. Phil. degree of the petitioner could not be considered equivalent to UGC (NET)Examination, which is an essential prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of lecturer. The petitioner lacked that qualification whereas respondent no.4 fulfilled the aforementioned qualification as he has acquired ugc (NET ). Having found the petitioner unsuitable for the post, the claim of respondent No.4, according to instructions dated 21.5.1979 (P-4)has been rightly considered. There is no illegality in the action of the respondents. The petitioner lacked that qualification whereas respondent no.4 fulfilled the aforementioned qualification as he has acquired ugc (NET ). Having found the petitioner unsuitable for the post, the claim of respondent No.4, according to instructions dated 21.5.1979 (P-4)has been rightly considered. There is no illegality in the action of the respondents. We uphold the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 by holding that he is a dependent of Ex-Serviceman and that after considering the claim of the petitioner, his claim has been correctly considered. There is no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.