- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant is an Ex-Serviceman. He was accepted as a Tehsildar candidate w.e.f. September 13, 1974 and allowed the benefit of military service for the purposes of seniority and was assigned the deemed date of May 27, 1973. It appears that certain adverse remarks came to be recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1978-79, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1984-85. The appellant questioned the adverse remarks and sought their expunction by filing a writ petition in the High Court in 1987. The High Court on 2nd May, 1990 directed the expunction of the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant. The High Court also set aside the orders passed by the competent authorities against refusal to expunge the adverse entries. The respondents were directed to grant consequential relief to the appellant. As a consequence of the judgment of the High Court dated 2nd May, 1990, the appellant was promoted as a District Revenue Officer on September 29, 1991 w.e.f. March 15, 1982. The appellant, however, was not satisfied with the orders made pursuant to the judgment of the High Court and he, therefore, filed a special leave petition in this Court being S.L.P. (C) No. 104/92 (C.A. No. 4249/92). A Bench of this Court granted leave and by an order dated 12-10-92 directed consideration of the appellant's name for promotion to H.C.S. (Executive Branch) without taking into account the expunged adverse remarks. After the judgment by this Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4249/92 on 12th October, 1992 the case of the appellant was taken up for consideration by the State Government and vide communication dated 28th of December, 1992 from the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh to the appellant, he was informed that the matter had been placed before the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 7(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 for considering his name for recruitment to the H.C.S. (Executive Branch) from Register A-1 for the vacancies which occurred in the years 1980 and 1982 as also for the special recruitment to the H.C.S. (Executive Branch) held in 1983, without taking into account the adverse expunged remarks. The appellant was informed that the Selection Committee had considered his name for inclusion in the list of persons considered suitable for appointment to the H.C.S. (Executive Branch) against the vacancies for the said years but that: "The Selection Committee in its meeting held on 16-12-1992 has found the record of other persons whose names had been included in the lists, already prepared on 13-12-1982, 17-3-1987 and 24-2-1988, better than yours and has decided not to include your name in the said lists. Since your name has not been included in the list of persons considered suitable for appointment to the HCS (Executive Branch), you cannot be considered for appointment to the HCS (Executive Branch) against the vacancies of Registrar A-I for the years 1980, 1982 and special recruitment for the year 1983."
(3.) The appellant thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6977/93 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana alleging that his name had been wrongly "excluded from consideration for appointment to the Haryana Civil Service for the years 1980, 1982 and 1983." Various grounds were taken in support of the writ petition. The learned single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 25th July, 1994 dismissed the writ petition. In the course of the judgment the learned single Judge referred to Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 as amended and applied to the State of Haryana as well as to a comparative chart of the service record of the appellant and those who were selected to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) in the years 1980, 1982 and 1983. The learned single Judge observed: "Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any material on the record to show that the service record of the petitioner was better than that of the persons who had been included in the list prepared by the Committee and sent to the Commission for Recommending in order of merit. Case of the petitioner was considered in terms of the Rules ibid but his service record was not found better than that of the candidates recommended to the Commission for selection. It is not the case of the petitioner that names of all the eligible candidates were to be sent to the commission for selection. Rule 7 of the Rules specifically provides that the Committee shall prepare a list of eligible candidates equal to twice the number of vacancies available and this is precisely that was done by the Committee. The lists prepared by the Committee were sent to the Commission for recommending in order of merit and equal to the number of vacancies the most suitable candidates entered in the list of being selected as candidates for entry into Register A-1. Petitioner had only a right of consideration and his name was duly considered by the Committee. He was not considered suitable by the Committee and thus his name could not be sent to the Commission. The Government placed the record before this Court to know that the case of the petitioner was duly considered against the vacancies that occurred during the years 1980, 1982 and 1983 and that his name could not be included in the list prepared by the Committee." (Emphasis ours);