State of Haryana and Others Versus Dinesh Singh and Another 

Advertisements

Introduction 

The case revolves around the recruitment and the appointment to Haryana Civil Services. The recruitment process is governed by Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008. Dinesh Singh was one of the respondents who had applied to these services, but he was found ineligible as he did not fulfil the requirements as stated under sub clause (iii) of clause (a) of Rule 9. He thought was not facing any disciplinary action but an action was contemplated against him due to which he was ineligible. But according to him no action was contemplated against him. The Single Judge Bench of the high court dismissed the writ petition of Dinesh, the matter was then taken before the Division Bench of the high court which reversed the judgement of the Single Judge Bench. The State of Haryana appealed in the Supreme Court which affirmed the order of the Single Judge Bench and rejected the order of the Division Bench.

Facts

1. Dinesh Singh was respondent no. 1 who had applied for appointment to a post in the Haryana Civil Services. 
2. The Department of Revenue and Disaster Management found him ineligible for selection to Register A-1 as he was not satisfying the eligibility criteria laid down under sub clause (iii) of clause (a) of Rule 9. 
3. Though he was not facing any disciplinary proceedings but an action was contemplated against him as on the date of consideration which made him ineligible.
4. But he contended that neither any disciplinary proceeding was pending against him nor any action was contemplated against him as on the date of consideration. 

Issue 

1. Whether any disciplinary proceedings or action contemplated as on the date of consideration against Dinesh Singh?
2. Whether 01.11.2018 is a cut-off date applicable to all eligibility conditions laid down under Rule 9(1)(a) and (b) or whether it was applicable only to determine the age- related eligibility?
3. Whether Dinesh satisfied all other eligibility conditions?

Contentions of the appellant

A careful reading of Rule 9 clearly shows that 01.11.2018 was a cut-off date to determine the age and ensure that it is within 50 years. The date was only to determine age-related eligibility. Other eligibility conditions are to be determined on the basis of ‘date of consideration’. Taking a uniform date would create an anomaly. This is because for a candidate against whom no disciplinary proceedings were pending on 01.11.2018 or before but pending subsequently on the date of consideration would remain eligible under Rule 9. This could never have been the intention of the rule makers. 

Contentions of the respondents

According to Rule 9 there is a uniform date for all the eligibility conditions, it is not possible to have different cut-off dates for different eligibility conditions. This is also proved by notification released on 30.05.2019. The state never pleaded that 31.08.2019 would be the date of consideration. It was always contended that 01.11.2018 is the uniform date for all the eligibility conditions. Even if we consider 31.08.2019 as the cut-off date but still there was not any disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent.

Judgment 

The Single Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the writ petition filed by Dinesh. The Single Judge Bench held that 01.11.2018 was taken as the cut-off date only as far as Clause (2) of Rule 9(1)(a) is concerned which talks about eligibility on the basis of age. The date cannot be considered as a uniform date. The matter was then referred to the Division Bench of the same high court which overturned the judgment of the single judge bench. The Division Bench however, held that 01.11.2018 operated as a uniform cut-off date and it applied to all the eligibility conditions found in Rule 9(1)(a). State of Haryana filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed, the Supreme Court rejected the ruling of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana Court and upheld the order of the Single Judge Bench of the same high court. 

Analysis

According to the single judge bench 01.11.2018 was a cut-off date as far the eligibility condition related to age is concerned but in order to determine eligibility as far as Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) is concerned the date of consideration is kept into account. The date cannot be a uniform one because if no disciplinary action was pending before 01.11.2018 but became subsequently then the person would still remain eligible. This cannot be the intention of the rule makers. The State Government’s letter to Additional Chief Secretary and Financial Commissioner sent on 30.05.2019 informing them about the vacant seats clearly deletes the uniform application of 01.11.2018 on all the eligibility conditions and making it restricted only to the age -related eligibility condition. The respondents cannot consider the previous letter which took 01.11.2018 as a uniform date when it was followed up by another letter clarifying that this cut-off date applies only to the age-related condition. In order to determine disciplinary proceedings, the date of consideration can only be taken into account. The respondent was held ineligible under Rule 9 because ‘decision has been taken on file to charge sheet him under Rule 7’. 

The main allegation against the respondent was that on 05.01.2019 and 06.01.2019, he was directed to act as Duty Magistrate during the Haryana Teacher’s Eligibility Test but he remained absent. On 05.02.2019 a chargesheet was filed against him and nothing much is relevant as to what happened after the date of consideration. Hence, on the date of consideration a disciplinary action was contemplated against Dinesh and he is ineligible. 

The single judge bench also referred to a number of other judgments in order to interpret the meaning of the word ‘contemplate’.  The court referred to the following meaning of the word contemplate. ‘Contemplation is a process that goes on in the mind and falls far short of a ‘decision’ which refers to the culmination of the process of contemplation in arriving at a definite conclusion as to the next course of action to be taken under a set of facts with the intention of carrying out a certain act’. 

Conclusion

The case revolves around the issue of whether any disciplinary proceedings or action contemplated as on the date of consideration against Dinesh Singh? And Whether 01.11.2018 is a cut-off date applicable to all eligibility conditions laid down under Rule 9(1)(a) and (b) or whether it was applicable only to determine the age- related eligibility? The Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana high court held that 01.11.2018 cannot be taken as a uniform date, which applies to all the eligibility conditions rather it is for determining the age-related condition only. The Division Bench of the same high court however, overturned the order of the single judge bench. An appeal was filed with the Supreme Court by the State of Haryana, the court allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court rejected the Division bench’s order and upheld the order of the Single Judge Bench.

References

1. SCC Online

Written by Shraddha Thapar an intern under legal vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin