Harbans Lal Suri vs State of Haryana and Another

D.K. Mahajan, J.—It is conceded by Mr. H.S. Wasu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that besides the contention, which will be noticed hereinafter, other contentions in his petition stand concluded by our decision in Civil Writ No. 2485 of 1967.

he additional contention of Mr. Wasu is that the Petitioner is not a direct recruit. He was appointed Sub-Inspector by transfer from another Government Department in which he was serving. According to the learned Counsel, Rule 8(3)(iii) only applies to direct recruits and as he is not a direct recruit, his services as Sub-inspector could not be terminated under that rule, and, therefore, his termination and reversion to his original post is not legal.

In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel, it will be proper to set out Rules 5, 7 and 8 together:

Educational Qualifications of Candidate

No person shall be directly appointed to the service unless he has passed the intermediate examination (in arts or science) of a recognized university or the Senior Oxford or Senior Cambridge Local, Examination, or the Diploma examination of the Aitchison College, Lahore.

Provided that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, may, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, appoint any person who does not possess the qualifications prescribed by this rule.

6 * * * *

Method of Recruitment

(1) Posts in the service shall be filled--

(a) in the case of Inspectors--

(i) by appointment from among Sub-Inspectors.

(ii) by transfer on deputation of an official already m Government service;

(b) in the case of Sub-Inspectors scale--

(i) by appointment from among Sub-Inspectors Leave reserve; or

(ii) by transfer or deputation of an official already in Government Service.

(c) In the case of Sub-Inspectors Leave reserve--

(i) by transfer on deputation of an official already in Government Service; or

(ii) by direct appointment of persons not already in Government (Pensionable) Service.

(2) When any vacancy occurs, or is about to occur in the Service, the appointing authority shall determine in what manner such vacancy shall be filled.

(3) Appointment to any post by promotion shall be made strictly by selection and no such appointment shall be regarded as a refusal of promotion to any person.

(4) No post in the service shall be filled by transfer, or deputation of a person already in Government Service, unless the head of the office concerned has agreed in writing to retain his lien on his substantive post for a period of at least one year and to take him back if reverted.

(1) No member of the service shall be confirmed in any post specified in Appendix A (except in the post of Excise Sub-Inspector (time-scale) until he has served in that post on probation for a period of two years in the case of members recruited by direct appointment, or of one year in the case of members recruited otherwise.

Explanation.--Continuous officiating service shall be reckoned as period spent on probation but no member shall on the completion of his period of probation be confirmed otherwise than against a permanent vacancy.

(2) If the work or conduct of any member during his period of probation is, in the opinion of the appointing authority, not satisfactory, the appointing authority may dispense with his services if he has been recruited by direct appointment, or may revert him to his former post if he has been recruited otherwise than by direct appointment.

(3) On the completion of the period of probation of any member, the appointing authority may appoint such member substantively, with retrospective effect if a vacancy exists, or, if his work or conduct has, in the opinion of the appointing authority, not been satisfactory, the appointing authority may dispense with his services if he has been recruited by direct appointment, or revert him to his former post if he has been recruited otherwise than by direct appointment, or may extend the period of probation and thereafter pass such order as it could have passed on the expiry of the first period of probations--

(i) provided that the total period of probation, including extensions, if any, shall not exceed three years in the case of persons recruited by direct appointment, and two years in the case of persons recruited otherwise;

(ii) provided further that, without the sanction of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to be given only for a special reasons, no person shall be appointed substantive Sub-Inspector time-scale or leave reserve, unless he has passed the departmental examination prescribed from time to time by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner;

(iii) provided further that no person directly appointed to the service shall be retained in the service, unless he passes the departmental examination for Excise Sub-Inspectors within three years of continuous officiating or substantive service from the date of his appointment.

* * * * * * *

Mr. Wasu contends that the person directly recruited is one mentioned in Rule 7(1)(c)(ii) and only to this category of recruits, Rule 8(3)(iii) applies. He further stresses that the educational qualifications in Rule 5 are only provided for a direct recruit and they do not hold good for those who come on transfer from other Government departments.

Mr. Anand Swarup, learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that all persons, who joined the service under Rule 7. are direct recruits and a distinction was necessary in Rule 7(1)(c) because the appointment was to Sub-Inspectors (Leave reserve), and it is only in the case of Sub-Inspectors (Leave reserve) that a provision was made for direct recruitment. But that does not mean that there could be no direct recruitment in the. case of Inspectors or Sub-Inspectors. He further points out that though there is a provision for appointment to any post by promotion, there is no reservation quota fixed for promotees. Wherever persons are appointed by promotion, a reservation quota is always fixed for them. It is further stressed that if the interpretation placed by Mr. Wasu is accepted, then Rule 5 will become redundant because it will only be applicable to a very limited class of entrants to service and it could not be the intention of the framers of the rules that persons should enter the service without possessing the qualifications prescribed in Rule 5.

It is between the relative merits of the respective contentions that the matter has to be settled. As a matter of fact, in Rule 7(1)(c)(ii), the phrase ''direct appointment'' has been used merely to differentiate between persons not in Government service and persons in Government service. The use of the phrase ''direct appointment'' further highlights that all appointments to the service are direct appointments and that appears to be so, if a reference is made to Rule 5. where again the phrase ''direct appointment'' is used or, to be exast, ''directly appointed''. The same phrase occurs in Rule 8(3)(iii). It appears to me that the contention of Mr. Anand Swarup is sound that all appointments under Rule 7 are ''direct appointments''. It does not matter from which source the recruit is taken. It is a fundamental rule of construction that in interpreting a set of rules, they should be harmoniously read together and efforts should be made to reconcile them and not to render them otiose. I am, therefore, not in agreement with the contention of Mr. Wasu and I must repel the same.

No other contention has been advanced.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Prem Chand Jain, J.

I agree.