AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pritpal Singh, J.—Common question of law having arisen in these six writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos. 624, 104, 339, 549, 581 and 2254 of 1985) they are being disposed of together.
The Petitioners in all the petitions were selected by the State of Punjab for admission to the State Patwar Schools in response to the Advertisements issued by the Respondent-Director, Land Records. They underwent theoritieal training of one year in the school and thereafter field training of six months was given to them. After completing the theoretical as well as the practical training successfully, certificates in token there of inured to them. They have sought writs of mandamus directing the State of Punjab to appoint them as Patwaris.
The Revnue Patwaris in the State of Punjab have to be appointed in accordance with the Punjab Revenue Patwaris, Class III Services Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules'') The relevant Rules pertaining to the appointment of Patwaris by direct recruitment are 4, 8, 10 and 11, which are as under:
Mode of acceptance of Patwari candidates:
(1) As and when a requisition is received by the Board from the Collector, the Board shall recommend to the Collector such number of candidates for acceptance as Patwari candidates as the Collector may specify in the requisition
(2) For the purpose of direst appointment to the Service a register of Patwari candidates shall be maintained by the Collector in each district in which the names of Patwari candidates shall be entered in the order in which they are recommended by the Board.
(3) The number of Patwari candidates that may be enrolled on the register of a district shall be such as may be determined by the Govermenet from time to time.
Qualifications for appointment: -(1) No Patwari candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the Service unless be qualifies the Patwari examination after attending the Patwar School for a minimum period of one year, and after passing the examination undergoes such practical field training for a period of six months as may be specified by the Collector.
(2) If the candidate fails to pass the Patwar examination within a period of 3 years from the date of his acceptance as candidate his name shall be struck off from the register of candidates.
(3) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to a candidate who has already passed the Patwar examination before he is accepted as a candidate and has also undergone practical field training as specified in Sub-rule (1).
Method of appointment: -(1) Appointment to the Service shall be made:
(a) in the Case of Patwaris:
(i) by promotion from amongst the Assistant Patwaris ; or
(ii) by direct appointment from amongst the accepted Patwari candidates, or
(iii) by transfer of an official already in the service of the State Government, and
(iv) by absorption of the retrenched or likely to be retrenched officials of the Punjab Consolidation Department.
(b) in the case of Assistant Patwaris by direct appointment from amongst the accepted Patwari candidates.
(2) When any vacancy arises, the appointing authority shall determine the method in which the same shall be filled in
(3) All promotions shall be made by selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and seniority alone shall not give any right to appointment.
Order in which appointment are to be made from amongst candidates. Appointments from amongst Patwari candidates shall be made in the order in which their names appear in the register of Patwari candidates.
These Rules envisage that on receipts of requisition by the Collector the Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter refer-red to as ''the Board'') shall recommend the names of candidates for acceptance as Patwari candidates. These names then have to be entered by the Collector in a register of Patwari candidates. Such candidates become eligible for appointment as Patwaris only if they qualify the Patwar examination after attending the Patwar school for a minimum of one year and after passing the examination undergo practical field training for a period of six months. All direct appointment have to be made from amongst the accepted candidates in the order in which their names appear in the register of Patwari candidates.
It is not alleged by the Petitioners that their names have been recommended By the Board to the respective Collectors. Clearly, therefore, the Petitioners are not such candidates who satisfy the requirements of Rule 4. They are not Patwari candidates whose names have to be entered in the register of Patwari candidates under Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 4. In other words they are not the accepted Patwari candidates who have the right to be appointed as Patwari in terms of Rules 10 and 11. Their only qualification is that they were selected to attend the Patwar school and they have successfully cleared the Patwar examination after attending the school for one year and have also undergone practical field training for six months. Some of them have even been appointed as Patwaris on ad hoc basis.
The law point which arises in all the six petitions is whether in the above circumstances the Petitioners can be considered to have acquired legal right to be appointed as Patwaris ? To put it in other words does the successful training in the Patwar School for one year and practical field training for six months mentioned in Rule 8 vest right of appointment as Patwaris in the Petitioners ?
On a careful consideration of the aforementioned Rules the answer to this question has to be in the negative. Only that persona who have been recommended by the Board to the Collector in terms of Rule 4(1) and whose name has been entered in the register of Patwari candidates in terms of Rule 4(2) has the right to be appointed at a Patwari, provided he qualifies the Patwar examination and then undergoes practical field training for six months described in Rule 8(1) According to Rule 8(2) if ho fails to pass the Patwar examination within a period of three years his name has to be struck off from the register of candidates. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that Rule 8 deals only with eligibility of a candidate accepted under Rule 4 to be appointed as a Patwari under Rule 10. Rule 8 certainly does not presuppose that any person who is allowed to attend the Patwar school and is successful in passing the Patwar examination would acquire legal right of appointment as a Patwari. Rule 8 plainly does not override the provisions of Rule 4.
It is provided in paragraph 310 of the Land Record''s Manual that a Patwar school shall function at the State level under the control of the Director of Land Records as and when considered necessary. It is not indicated from the contents of this paragraph that a Patwar school is meant only to give training to the successful candidates recommended by the Board to the Collector for acceptance as Patwari candidates under Rule 4(1). Of course, the candidates entered in the register by the Collector under Rule 4(2) have necessarily to attend the school and to qualify the Patwar examination as well as to undergo practical field training for six months to become eligible for appointment as Patwaris in view of Rule 8. However, it cannot be said that all persons who are allowed to attend the Patwar school and who successfully qualified the Patwar examination and underwent practical filed training for six months would acquire legal right to be appointed as Patwaris irrespective of provisions of Rule 4
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the persons having successfully qualified the Patwar examination and having undergone six months practical field training envisaged under Rule 8 should be deemed to have been selected for appointment as Patwaris under Rule 4. I discern no merit in this contention. In Rule 8 it is nowhere provided that all the persons so qualified by attending the Patwar schools as well as by undergoing the practical filed training for six months would have the vested right to be appointed as Patwaris. All that this rule says is that no Patwari candidates accepted under Rule 4 would become eligible for appointment to the service unless he qualifies the Patwar examination and undergoes practical field training for six months. If he fails to pass the Patwar examination, within a period of three years, his name has to be struck off from the register of candidates in view of Rule 8(2). Rule 8(3) clarifies that if any candidate has already passed the Pat-war examination, before he is accepted as a candidate under Rule 4(1) he need not be given fresh training after his acceptance. Meaning thereby that Patwar School examination can be passed even before selection under Rule 4(1). I am, therefore, unable to subscribe to the view of the learned Petitioners'' counsel that simply because the Petitioners had been selected to attend the Patwar school and they had successfully pissed the Patwar school examination and had further undergoae practical field training for six months, they should be deemed to have acquired the legal right of being appointed as Patwaris under Rule 10. In this context an earlier judgment of this Court in Tilak Raj v. State of Punjab C.W.P. 5147 of 1983, C.W.P. No. 5147 of 1983, decided on December 14, 1984, may also be noticed in that case the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, had appointed a number of persons, who had obtained the training from the Patwar school, as Patwaris on ad hoc basis It was held in unambiguous terms that such persons had not been appointed as Patwaris on regular basis in accordance with the Rules. The view taken was that such ad hoc appointments were nothing but a clear intention on the part of the Collector to bye-pass the Rules and to do what the Rules forbade him to do. In the result the Collector, Gurdaspur, was directed not to extend ad hoc appointment of those persons and he was ordered to fill up the vacancies of Patwaris strictly in accordance with the Rules This judgment clearly runs contrary to the view that merely by undergoing training in the Patwar school successfully the candidates acquire vasted right to be appointed as Patwaris irrespective of Rule 4.
For the reasons stated above, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Petitioners of these writ petitions have no legal right to be appointed as Patwaris under the Rules and resultantly the writ petitions are dismissed No order as to costs.