AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.L. Bhat, J.—This motion of revision is aimed at revising the order of learned District Judge, Srinagar, recorded in CIMA No. 79/Misc. of
1999 titled as above.
It appears that the petitioner on 31.8.1998 came to institute a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction against the
respondents-defendants before the court of learned District Judge, Srinagar who in turn came to transfer the suit file to the court of 1st. Additional
Munsiff, Srinagar. In the said suit the petitioner-appellant has sought relief of decree of declaration against respondents-defendants to the effect
declaring him entitled for selection and promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar and decree for mandatory injunction against the respondents-
defendants for declaring the result of the petitioner-plaintiff in the examination of Naib Tehsildars conducted by defendant under Roll No. 260 of
session 1997. It is inter-alia maintained in the plaint that the petitioner-plaintiff is Law Graduate, came to be promoted as Girdwar pursuant to
order No. Div-Corn-K/03/Estt. of 1997 dated 17.9.1997. That the plaintiff has taken departmental examination of Naib Tehsildar as he was
allowed to sit in the said examination under R. No. 260 session of 1997 Vide No. PSC/EX-97 of 3.6.1997; that the petitioner faired well in the
said examination but the defendants have not declared his result for which he approached before them several times; that the defendants cannot in
any manner whatsoever withhold his result. Alongside in this petitioner-plaintiff came to file an application for issuance of ad interim injunction
which came to be dismissed by the trial court by virtue of its order dated: 31.8.1999. This dismissal order of ad-interim injunction came to be
challenged before the learned District Judge, Srinagar in CIMA who disposed of the same after up-holding the order of learned Munsiff and
presumably dismissed the appeal by virtue of its judgment dated: 6.5.2000. This order of learned District Judge is impugned in this revision.
The stand of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist, is that the petitioner is a Law Graduate deserves every consideration for
grant of relief sought by him in his suit on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Besides this the petitioner has produced copy of certificate
issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Baramula before the trial court certifying his eligibility to sit in the examination which has not been considered at
all by the courts below.
Heard Mr. G.A. Lone, learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 4 of the Naib Tehsildar Departmental Examination Rules, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as Rules) issued by the Government vide SRO No. 345 dated: 7.10.1964, lays down the criteria for the persons to appear
in the Naib Tehsildari Examination. It provides that:
(a) no person shall be eligible to appear in the examination unless he is a candidate approved by the competent authority for the post of Naib
Tehsildar or
(b) Is working as Naib Tehsildar;
(c) Is working as Girdwar, Saddar Qanoon-go, Naib Saddar Qanoon-go or office Qanoongo provided that he is a matriculate.
Rules 5 of the said Rules provides inter-alia that the candidate desirous of appearing in the said examination shall submit an application to the
Secretary which shall be accompanied by :
(i) tow copies of pass-port size photograph of the candidate;
(ii) Certificate of eligibility from the Dy. Commissioner concerned in the following form:
Certified that the candidate does not suffer from any of the disqualifications provided under rules 15 to 19 and in view of the provisions contained
in Rule 4 is eligible to appear in the departmental examination of Naib Tehsildar"".
Respondent-defendant No. 2 in its written statement filed before the trial court has inter alia stated that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts
from the Hon'ble Court that he has already filed a writ petition regarding the same cause of action bearing SWP No. 293/95 in the Hon'ble High
Court of J&K and has therefore not approached this August forum with clean hands. That the suit is hit by section 10 of CPC; that applications for
departmental examination of Naib Tehsildars were invited from eligible candidates vied notification No. PSC/EX-9447 dated: 12.9.1994 and last
date for receipt of applications was fixed as 26.10.1994; that pursuant to the notification No. 331 applications were received that date of
examination was fixed on 29.7.1995, that subsequently after the cut-off date for the receipt of applications, the Dy. Commissioner, Srinagar vide
his letter No. 71-72- SO/MCC/intt dated: 8.4.1995 addressed to Divisional Commissioner, for- warded to the Commission office; two
application forms of the petitioners for consideration in the light of directions by the Hon'ble High Court dated: 22.031995; that as the cut-off date
for the receiving the applications was over and also for the reason that the Dy. Commissioner had not recorded the eligibility certificate on the
application forms of the petitioners, so the Commission was not in a position to entertain the two application forms of the petitioners and allow
them to appear in the examination and the Revenue Department was requested by the answering respondents vide letter No. PSC/Exam./94
dated: 20.6.1991 to consider the issue on its merits and further action in the matter that no action was taken in the matter by the Revenue
Department. However on 20.7.1995 court order was received by the Answering respondents wherein petitioners were permitted to sit in the
examination of Naib Tehsildar on provisional basis, as such the petitioners were permitted to appear provisionally in the examination. That the
Revenue Department vide Government order No. Rev(NO) 121 of 1995 dated: 25.7.1995 have considered the issue in detail and it has been
ordered that no relaxation for appearing in the Naib Tehsildar departmental examination is warranted in favour of the Patwari or clerks of the
Revenue Department. In the face of clear decision of the Government the case of the petitioner has no justification. Confronted with this factual
position of the case set up by the defendants in their written statement before the trial court the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioners stand now promoted as Girdwar therefore has acquired eligibility qualification under rule 4 of the Rules and can be considered for the
relief sought and that he has produced the photo-copy of eligibility certificate duly issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Baramulla before the trial court
and the same has not been considered. On consideration of the matter, it is found that the petitioner-plaintiff who was a patwari was temporarily
promoted to the post of Girdwar on 17.9.1997 subject to confirmation by DPC by virtue of order No. Div-Commr-K-203(Estt) of 1997 dated:
17.9.1997 vide Annexure P-2 to the plaint and was posted at Srinagar. This being so, on the date of the publication of notification No.
PSC/EX/94/41 dated: 12.9.1994 and also on the last date of receipt of applications which was fixed as 26.10.1994 and came to be extended as
stated by the defendants in their written statement to 24.7.1995, the petitioner-plaintiff was a patwari as such under Rule 4 of the Rules he was not
eligible to appear in the Naib Tehsildari departmental examination because as per his own showing he came to be promoted as Girdwar in the year
1997 that is well after the cut-off date for the receipt of applications from the persons eligible to appear in the said examination. The photo-stat
copy of the eligibility certificate on the file of the trial court reveals that it is not at all dated and appears to have been issued by Dy. Commissioner,
Baramulla when the petitioner as per annexure-2 was shown to be posted as Patwari at Srinagar on the date prior to his promotion as Girdwar.
This being so, this certificate is not the eligibility certificate as contemplated under Rule 5 of the Rules as the same ought to have been from the
Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar. Law is settled on the point that if a person is not eligible for consideration for recruitment or selection on the cut-
off date for ascertaining his eligibility as prescribed by the advertisement notice he cannot be considered for such recruitment or selection, after his
having acquired his eligibility qualification after the said cut off date. In this behalf reference is made to the authoritative judgment of the Apex Court
in a case State of Rajasthan v. Hatindra Kumar Bhat and Ors, reported in AIR 1998 SC 91. In para 6 of this judgment their Lordships of the apex
court have held:
Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have referred to above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration, It is submitted
by the respondent before us that since he has continued and has now been confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has requested that
his case should be considered sympathetically. The fact however remains that the appellants have taken the correct stand right from the beginning.
The respondents application was not considered and he was not called for interview. It was on account of the interim orders which were obtained
by the respondent that he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to out com of his petition. One
cannot, therefore, take the sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent finds himself. A cut-off date by which all the requirements
relating to qualifications have met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known
that date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the
prescribed date. Relaxing the pre- scribed requirements in the case of individual may, therefore, case injustice to others.
Besides this, it is also borne by record that prior to the institution of suit in question, the petitioner invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this
court for the issuance of Roll Number for sitting in the examination in question but he has supressed this important fact before the trial court. This
would show his conduct and in view of this conduct it is to be seen whether he is entitled to the equitable relief sought by him by way of interim
injunction. There cannot be two opinions about this principle of law that if a person wants equity to be done to him he must show that he has come
to the court with clean hands. If a litigant conceals facts deliberately to obtain an interim relief from the court, his conduct will disentitle him from
seeking such relief.
Viewed thus, the order impugned does not suffer with any jurisdictional error or with any material irregularity if allowed may cause injustice to
the petitioner-plaintiff.
The net result is that the motion of revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. Record be sent back together with a copy of this order.