Rajpal Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4755-4756/1998
Petitioner: Rajpal
Respondent: State of Haryana & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4755-4756/1998
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 10, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS / PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
Constitution
Articles 14, 16, 226 – Regularisation – Canal patwari – Appointed in 1995 – Applied to SSB for regular appointment – Application rejected on grounds that matriculation was passed from an institution, not a university established by law or a deemed university under UGC Act, 1956 – However, appellant found to have passed 10+2 examination conducted by Haryana Education Board. Held that in view of undisputed fact, writ by appellant should have been allowed. High Court orders set aside and SSB directed to consider the case on the date of application. (Paras 2, 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. H.S.E.B. & Ors v. Rajinder Kumar (civil appeal no. 6870/1995) (Para 4)
2. Suresh Pal & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 2027) (Para 4)
2. Suresh Pal & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 2027) (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant before us was appointed as a canal patwari in the year, 1995 and thereafter he sought for regular appointment by applying to the service selection board. That application was rejected. He filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the action of the board. It was disclosed that the appellant had passed matriculation examination conducted by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa-vidyalaya in the year, 1989. It was found later on that the said Vishwavidyalaya is not a university established by law in India nor it has been declared to be a deemed university under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and he was found to possess certain qualifications which could not be taken note of and, therefore, the action of the board was upheld by the High Court in considering his case. Hence, this appeal.
2. It is brought to our notice that the appellant had passed 10+2 examination held by the Haryana Education Board which qualification is not suspected or doubtful. When the appellant possesses higher qualification from an appropriate board, we do not think it was necessary for the High Court to examine other aspects of the matter. In that view of the matter, the High Court should have allowed the writ petition rather than to dismiss it.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of this Court in H.S.E.B. & Ors v. Rajinder Kumar (civil appeal no. 6870/1995) wherein, it is noticed by this Court that it is permissible for the government when it came to know that the institution from which the appellant had passed was not recognised by the University Grants Commission, to take appropriate action in the matter. Shri P.C. Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Suresh Pal & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 2027) to the effect that it would be unjust to tell the students that at the time of joining the course, it was recognised and they cannot be refused the benefit of such recognition thereafter. It is unnecessary to examine these questions in the view we have taken.
4. In the circumstances, we set aside the order made by the High Court and allow the writ petition filed by the appellant. However, it would be appropriate for the service selection board to examine the case of the appellant on the date he had filed the application which was the subject matter of the writ petition and decide the matter by making an appropriate recommendation to the government. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
1. The appellant before us was appointed as a canal patwari in the year, 1995 and thereafter he sought for regular appointment by applying to the service selection board. That application was rejected. He filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the action of the board. It was disclosed that the appellant had passed matriculation examination conducted by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa-vidyalaya in the year, 1989. It was found later on that the said Vishwavidyalaya is not a university established by law in India nor it has been declared to be a deemed university under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and he was found to possess certain qualifications which could not be taken note of and, therefore, the action of the board was upheld by the High Court in considering his case. Hence, this appeal.
2. It is brought to our notice that the appellant had passed 10+2 examination held by the Haryana Education Board which qualification is not suspected or doubtful. When the appellant possesses higher qualification from an appropriate board, we do not think it was necessary for the High Court to examine other aspects of the matter. In that view of the matter, the High Court should have allowed the writ petition rather than to dismiss it.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of this Court in H.S.E.B. & Ors v. Rajinder Kumar (civil appeal no. 6870/1995) wherein, it is noticed by this Court that it is permissible for the government when it came to know that the institution from which the appellant had passed was not recognised by the University Grants Commission, to take appropriate action in the matter. Shri P.C. Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Suresh Pal & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 2027) to the effect that it would be unjust to tell the students that at the time of joining the course, it was recognised and they cannot be refused the benefit of such recognition thereafter. It is unnecessary to examine these questions in the view we have taken.
4. In the circumstances, we set aside the order made by the High Court and allow the writ petition filed by the appellant. However, it would be appropriate for the service selection board to examine the case of the appellant on the date he had filed the application which was the subject matter of the writ petition and decide the matter by making an appropriate recommendation to the government. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
