Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
(EX) CAPT. RANDHIR SINGH DHULL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
S. D. BHAMBRI & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT02/03/1981
BENCH:
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
BENCH:
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
PATHAK, R.S.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION:
1981 AIR 1082 1981 SCR (3) 55
1981 SCC (2) 338 1981 SCALE (1)647
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1986 SC1183 (1)
F 1991 SC1047 (14)
ACT:
Punjab Tahsildari Rules 1932, Rules 5 and 11 and
Standing Order No. 12 of 1909, Part A, Para 4(1) and Punjab
Emergency (Concession) Rules 1965, Rules 2 and 4(ii)-Class
‘A’ Tahsildar-Recruitment-Candidates initially ‘accepted’
and thereafter ‘appointed’-Seniority-Determined by date of
substantive appointment in the post-Military service
rendered by a candidate-Concession in seniority-When
admissible.
HEADNOTE:
Standing Order No. 12 of 1909 (Part A) provides for two
classes of Tahsildar candidates (1) class ‘A’ (or direct)
and (2) class‘B’. Para 4 (1) of the Standing Order read with
the Punjab Tahsildari Rules 1932 provides that candidates
are required to undergo training for a period of three years
in the case of class ‘A’ direct recruits. In addition to the
completion of training a candidate is required to pass a
qualifying departmental examination before he is eligible to
be appointed to the post of Tahsildar, temporary or
permanent.
Initially, a tahsildar candidate is not enrolled
against any post, nor is he appointed against any vacancy
but is appointed against vacancies after completing the
training and passing the examination held. After appointment
to the post of tahsildar, the officer has to be on probation
for a period of two years under Rule 10 of the Tahsildari
Rules. Rule 11 provides that the seniority of members of the
service shall be determined by the date of substantive
appointment in the post.
The Punjab Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 provides
by sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 that the period of ‘military
service’ shall be taken into consideration for the purpose
of determining the seniority of a person who has rendered
military service.
The petitioner in his writ petition contended, that he
appeared in the class ‘A’ Tahsildar candidate Haryana Civil
Services (Executive Branch) Services Examination 1972-73 and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
was accepted as ‘A’ Class Tahsildar candidate on September
13, 1974 and joined the civil post with effect from
September 26, 1974. After completing the training he was
appointed to the post on January 3, 1978. He approached
respondent No. 1 under Rule 4(1) and (ii) of the Punjab
Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 and requested that the
military service rendered by him from 1963 to 1974 except
for the period from July 2, 1968 to October 13, 1968 be
tagged on to his services with effect from September 26,
1974 for the purpose of his seniority, increments,
promotion, pensions etc. and that respondent No. 1 did not
give this facility though it was accorded to other
respondents, and that the promotion of respondents Nos. 3 to
18 who were junior to him had violated Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution.
The first respondent claimed that the petitioner was
accepted as class ‘A’ Tahsildar candidate on 13th September,
1974 and that he had qualified himself
56
for the post of Tahsildar after he had completed the
prescribed training and successfully qualified in the
departmental examination and that he was appointed as
Tahsildar by the order dated January 3, 1978. As the
petitioner had been in service in the Armed Forces from
April 29, 1963 to January 10, 1968 on which day termination
of the Emergency was declared, the petitioner was given the
benefit of the service and his seniority was fixed as on May
26, 1973 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4, sub-
clause (ii) read with Rule 2 of the Punjab Emergency
(Concession) Rules 1965.
Dismissing the petition,
^
HELD : 1. The petitioner was not appointed to but
accepted as a candidate for the post of Tahsildar. [63 D]
In the instant case a perusal of the letter of
appointment Annexure P-5 alongwith sub-rules 2 and 3 of
Rules 5 and 11 of the Tahsildari Rules shows that the
petitioner was merely accepted as a candidate for the post
of Tahsildar. It is mentioned therein that the terms and
conditions of the service namely training, passing of
departmental examination, and probation are to be governed
by the Tahsildari Rules and Standing Order No. 12 as amended
from time to time. A candidate had to fulfil the said terms
and conditions mentioned before his appointment to the post
of Tahsildar. [62 H-63 D]
2. The petitioner’s substantive appointment was by
order dated January 3, 1978. It is clear from the said order
that the substantive appointment of the petitioner cannot be
before the said date. [63 E, 64 F]
3. The military service of the petitioner from January
11, 1962 to July 1, 1968 and again from October 31, 1968 to
September 22, 1974 was not during the operation of
emergency. The petitioner’s service from October 31, 1969 to
September 22, 1974 was not as an "enrolled or commissioned
service in any of the three wings of the Indian Armed
Forces." During this period the petitioner had been allowed
the benefit of service rendered by him in the Army for the
period from April 29, 1963 to January 10, 1968 by the order
dated December 14, 1978 of the Financial Commissioner. [66
C]
4. The petitioner has not been able to point out that
any of the respondent Nos. 3 to 18 was given seniority from
the date of acceptance. In fact none of them was accepted
alongwith him by letter dated September 13, 1974. [67A]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1099 of 1979.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
R. K. Garg, P. C. Bhartari, K. S. Tiwari, Arvind Kumar
and Mrs. Laxmi Arvind for the Appellant.
K. G. Bhagat and M. N. Shrof for Respondents 1 & 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BAHARUL ISLAM, J. This is an application under Art. 32
of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner, Ex.-Capt.
Randhir Singh
57
Dhull prays that the military services rendered by him from
1963 to 1974 (except for the period during 1968 from 2.7.68
to 13.10.1968) be tagged to his services with effect from
26.9.1974 for the purpose of his seniority, increments,
promotion, pensions etc., and for a direction to respondent
no. 1, the State of Haryana, to promote him to the Haryana
Civil Service (Emergency Branch) on the basis of the
seniority claimed with effect from the date mentioned above.
His grievance is that respondents no. 3 to 18 who were
junior to him had been promoted and put above him. The
impugned action of respondent no. 1, according to the
petitioner, has violated Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
2. This case has a chequered career. The material facts
may be stated in a short compass. The petitioner is an ex-
army personnel, his rank having been Captain. He served
during the period of Emergency from 29-4-1963 to 1-7-1968
and also during the period of Emergency from 31.10.1969 to
22.9.1974, the total period of service thus having been 10
years, one month and 23 days before his appointment to the
present post he is now holding.
3. The respondent no. 1 through the Haryana Public
Service Commission by an advertisement called for
applications that a combined competitive examination for
recruitment to, inter alia, "A Class Tahsildar (Apprentices)
would be held by the Haryana Public Service Commission at
Chandigarh in March, 1973 in accordance with the rules
contained in the Punjab Public Service (Executive Branch)
Rules, 1930. The petitioner appeared in the said examination
and was successful and as a result he was appointed to
present post of Tahsildar Class II post.......... against
reserved post/service for ex-services."
4. There is a set of rules called the Punjab Emergency
(Concession) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter ‘the Emergency
Concession Rules’). According to the petitioner he joined
civil post on 26.9.74 and under Rule 4(i) & (ii) of the
aforesaid Rules and the administrative instructions his
services are required to be counted immediately on his
joining the Civil post namely with effect from 26.9.1974,
tagging the period of military services to the present post.
But as respondent no. 1 did not do so, he sent several
representations to respondent no. 1 to give him the benefit
of seniority, promotion, increment etc. according to the
said set of Rules. The petitioner alleges that while
respondent no. 1 did not tag the petitioner’s period of
military service towards his seniority; promotion and
increment, respondent no. 1 gave similar facilities to Capt.
Phul Singh, Kewal Singh, Indraj Singh, H.R. Kapur and other
respondents. His further allegation is that
58
while he has been deprived of his dues mentioned above,
respondent nos. 3 to 18, who were junior to him were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
promoted to be put above him.
As the respondent no. 1 did not favourably react to the
representations made by the petitioner, he filed a Writ
Petition, being W. P. No. 1398/77, in the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana but he withdrew it on a promise made by
the Counsel of respondent no. 1. But as respondent no. 1 did
not keep the promise he filed an application for review of
the order made in W. P. No. 1398 of 1977. The petition for
review was rejected but he was permitted by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana to file a fresh application. He then
filed CWP No. 3584 of 1977 which was dismissed in August,
1978 by a single Judge of the said High Court. The
petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of
the single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal was also
dismissed. The petitioner then filed a special leave
petition before this Court. The special leave petition was
also dismissed. He then filed an application for review
before this Court. The application for review was also
dismissed in limine. The petitioner then filed an
application before the single Judge of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana for the review of his judgment but it was
dismissed in April, 1979. Against that order a special leave
petition, being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 4475 of 1979, was filed
before this Court. The Special Leave Petition was allowed to
be withdrawn by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to
file a Regular Writ Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution by Order dated 27.8.79. The petitioner has thus
filed the present writ application.
5. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter ‘the respondent’) has
filed a counter affidavit. The contention of the respondent
is that by Annexure P. 5 the petitioner was not appointed to
the post of Tahsildar but he was accepted as a Tahsildar
candidate. In other words, the Respondent’s contention is
that the petitioner was accepted as an Apprentice for
appointment to the post of Tahsildar after he qualified in
the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied
Services Examination held by the Haryana Public Service
Commission in 1972-1973 in accordance with the rules in
force for selection of ‘A’ class Tahsildar-apprentices.
According to the respondent the petitioner was accepted by
the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, as a candidate, for the
post of Tahsildar in the State of Haryana on 13th September,
1974 as per Annexure P. 5. The respondent has explained the
procedure. The procedure is that candidates for the post of
Tahsildar are required under para 4(1) of the Standing Order
No. 12 (hereinafter ‘the Standing Order’) issued by the
Financial
59
Commissioners read with Rule 5 of the Punjab Tahsildari
Rules 1932, (hereinafter ‘the Tahsildari Rules’) to undergo
training for a period of three years in the case of directly
recruited candidates categorised as ‘A’ Class. In the case
of candidates recruited otherwise are categorised as ‘B’
class candidates; the training period is fixed by the
Financial Commissioner keeping in view candidates’
experience and qualification. In addition to the completion
of training, candidates are required to pass certain
qualifying departmental examination before he is eligible to
be appointed to the post of Tahsildar, temporary or
permanent. Initially the tahsildar candidates are not
enrolled against any post, nor are they appointed against
any vacancy but they are appointed against vacancies after
they have completed the training and passing the examination
held. After appointment to the post of Tahsildar the Officer
has to be on probation for a period of two years under Rule
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
10 of the Tahsildari Rules. According to the respondent the
petitioner was accepted as Class ‘A’ Tahsildar
candidate/apprentice on 13th September, 1974. The petitioner
qualified himself for the post of Tahsildar after he had
completed the prescribed training and successfully qualified
in the departmental examination and he along with 6 others
was appointed as Tahsildar in the post of Tahsildar by Order
dated 3rd January 1978.
The respondent’s case is that ‘as the petitioner had
been in service in Armed Forces from April 29, 1963 to
January 10, 1968 on which date termination of the Emergency
was declared under Art. 352 of the Constitution with effect
from 26th October, 1962, the petitioner was given the
benefit of the service and his seniority was fixed as on
27th May 1973 in accordance with the provisions of Rule
4(ii) read with Rule 2 of the Emergency Concession Rules,
1965 (Annexure ‘B’).
6. The decision of this case depends primarily on the
true and correct interpretation of the document, Annexure P-
5 :
(i) Whether it is a letter of appointment of the
petitioner to the post of Tahsildar, as claimed by
the petitioner, or
(ii) Whether it is a letter of acceptance of the
candidature of the petitioner to the post of
Tahsildar, as contended by the respondent. The
material portion of document Annexure P-5 reads :
60
"From
The Financial Commissioner & Secretary to
Government, Haryana, Revenue Department.
To
1. Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal................
2. Shri Amarnath Ichhpujani...............
3. Shri Ashok Kumar Visistha..............
4. Shri Kamal Kumar Gupta.................
5. Shri Hardhull Singh Bhole..............
6. Shri Randhir Singh Dhull (Petitioner)
7. Shri Nepal Singh Tanwar................
Memo No. 3896-E-II-74/30535
Chandigarh, dated the 13th September, 1974
Subject ; Acceptance of class ‘A’ Tahsildar candidate
Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and
other services examinations 1972-73.
The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Haryana
is pleased to accept Sarvshri Raj Kumar Aggarwal,
Amar Nath Ichhpujani, Ashok Kumar Vasistha, Kamal
Gupta, Hardhul Singh Bhole, Randhir Singh Dhull
and Nepal Singh Tanwar as ‘A’ Class Tahsildar
candidates. The acceptance of Sarvshri Ashok Kumar
Vasistha and Hardhul Singh Bhole is subject to
verification of their character and antecedents.
2. The interse seniority of the above candidates will
be communicated to them later.
3. The arrangements for their training will be made
by the Commissioners, Ambala and Hissar Division,
who are being asked to communicate the programme
of training to them. They are allotted to the
Commissioners, Ambala and Hissar Division for
training as under :
61
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER,
AMBALA DIV. HISSAR DIV.
1. Shri Raj Kumar 1. Shri Kamal Kumar
Aggarwal Gupta
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
2. Shri Amarnath 2. Shri Hardhul Singh
Ichhpujani Bhole
3. Shri Randhir 3. Shri Ashok Kumar
Vasistha
4. Shri Nepal Singh
Tanwar
4. The terms and conditions of their service,
training, passing of departmental examination,
probation etc. will be governed by the Punjab
Tahsildari Rules, 1932 and the Financial
Commissioner’s Standing Order No. 12 as amended
from time to time.
5. During the period of their training they shall
draw pay at the rate of the minimum of the time
scale of the post of Tahsildar of Rs. 350-25-500-
30-650-800 viz. Rs. 350/- P.M.
6. They are requested to intimate their Home
Districts and the districts in which they have
property to the Commissioner of Divisions to whom
they have been allotted for imparting training,
and this department,
7. The receipt of this communication may please be
acknowledged.
Sd/-
Deputy Secretary Revenue,
Financial Commissioner and Secretary to
Government, Haryana and Revenue
Department."
(emphasis added)
7. Annexure P-5 is based on the Standing Order, and the
Tahsildari Rules. The Standing Order, inter alia, says that
the rules for the appointment, removal and discipline of
Tahsildars and Naib Tahsildars are contained in the
Tahsildari Rules.
62
Part A of the Standing Order speaks of two classes of
Tahsildar:
(1) Class A (or direct) candidates and (2) Class B
candidates.
The relevant provisions of Rule 5 of Tahsildari Rules
may be extracted;
"5 (1) No person shall be directly appointed to the
service unless in the case of appointment to the post
of
(a) Tahsildar, he is graduate of a recognised
university
(b) .....................
(2) No person shall be appointed directly or by
transfer to the service or promoted from the post of
Naib Tahsildar to that of Tahsildar unless he shall
have become qualified by passing the examination or
undergoing the training prescribed from time to time in
the Standing Orders of the Financial Commissioners.
(3) No person shall be appointed directly or by
transfer to the service unless he has been accepted as
a candidate in the case of Tahsildar by the Financial
Commissioners and in the case of Naib Tahsildar by the
Commissioner under the conditions prescribed from time
to time in the Standing Orders of the Financial
Commissioners".
(emphasis added)
Rule 11 speaks of the seniority of service and need be
quoted:
"11. The seniority of members of the service shall in
so far as any post is concerned be determined by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
date of substantive appointment in the post
..................."
(emphasis added)
’Service’ has been defined in the Tahsildari Rules as:
"Service means the Punjab Service of Tahsildars and
Naib Tahsildars".
8. A perusal of the letter as per Annexure P. 5
alongwith sub-rules 2 and 3 of rule 5 and rule 11 of the
Tahsildari Rules clearly
63
show that by letter Annexure P. 5 the petitioner was merely
accepted as a candidate for the post of Tahsildar. Annexure
P. 5 itself has mentioned the terms and conditions of the
service namely training, passing of departmental examination
and probation to be governed by the Tahsildari Rules and
Standing Order No. 12 as amended from time to time. A
candidate had to fulfil the terms and conditions named in
the letter before his appointment to the post of Tahsildar.
The terms and conditions were:
(i) to undergo a period of training
(ii) to pass a departmental examination.
(iii) to undergo a period of probation, etc.
Fulfillments of these terms and conditions by a
candidate were conditions precedent to his appointment.
Annexure P. 5 has nowhere mentioned that the petitioner
was appointed as a Tahsildar.
We therefore have no hesitation in holding that he was
not appointed to, but accepted as candidate for, the post of
Tahsildar, by Annexure P. 5.
9. Rule 11 lays down that the seniority of the members
of the service shall be determined by the date of the
substantive appointment in the post. The petitioner’s
substantive appointment was vide order dated 3.1.78
(Annexure A to the Counter Affidavit) which reads as:
"Subject: Declaration of ’A’ Class Tahsildar candidate
(under training as Naib Tahsildar) as
qualified for the post of Tahsildar.
In Exercise of the powers vested in him vide para 6 of
the Financial Commissioners Standing Order No. 12, the
Financial Commissioner, Revenue is pleased to declare
the following ’A’ Class Tahsildar candidates as
qualified for the post of Tahsildar;
1. Shri Amar Nath Ichhpujani, under training as Naib
Tahsildar, Thanesar.
2. Shri Ashok Vashisitha, under Training as Naib
Tahsildar, Gurgaon.
3. Shri Kamal Kumar Gupta, under training as Naib
Tahsildar, Rohtak.
64
4. Shri Hardhul Singh Bhole, under training as Naib
Tahsildar, Mohindergarh.
5. Shri Randhir Singh Dhull, under training as Naib
Tahsildar working as Tahsildar, Kalka, under local
arrangement.
6. Shri Nepal Singh Tanwar, under training as Naib
Tahsildar, Rawal.
2. Consequent upon the declaration of the above ’A’
Class Tahsildar candidates as qualified for the post of
Tahsildar, they are appointed as Tahsildars. The orders
about their deployment against the posts of Tahsildars
are being issued separately. Their appointment as
Tahsildar shall take effect from the date they assume
charge of those posts. Their appointment as Tahsildars
will be governed by the Punjab Tahsildari Rules, 1932,
and the Financial Commissioners Standing Order No. 12,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
as amended from time to time.
3. The declaration of Shri Hardhul Singh Bhole (sl. no.
4 above) as qualified for the post of Tahsildar and his
consequent appointment as such, is subject to the
condition that he should qualify the tahsildar’s
examination in Urdu paper within 6 months from the date
of issue of this letter.
Sd/-
Deputy Secretary to Govt.,
Haryana.
Revenue Department."
(emphasis added)
From Annexure A, it is clear that the date of the
substantive appointment of the petitioner cannot be before
3.1.78.
10. Standing Order No. 12 of 1909 (Part A), as stated
above, mentions two classes of "Tahsildar candidates": (i)
Class A (or direct) and (ii) Class B. We are not concerned
with class B tahsildar. Class A (or direct) candidates,
according to Order No. 12, "must belong to families of tried
loyalty and distinguished services, and must be of good
social status and influence in the country or members of a
class the introduction of which into the public service it
is considered desirable especially to
encourage................."
(emphasis added)
65
The petitioner submits that Standing Order No. 12 which
is a part of the Tahsildari Rules does not survive the
Constitution. We do not feel called upon to decide this
point in this case as the petitioner cannot be allowed to
raise the point for two reasons:-
(i) The basis of the petitioner’s case all throughout,
at all stages, was Annexure P. 5 based on the
Tahsildari Rules and Standing Order No. 12. Even
now he does not claim his appointment on any other
basis;
(ii) Secondly, if the Tahsildari Rules and the Standing
Order No. 12 are held to be ultra vires, the
letter of acceptance (or letter of appointment as
the petitioner erroneously calls it) which was
issued under the provisions of the said Rules,
will disappear and the petitioner will have no
legs to stand on.
11. Rule 11 of the Tahsildari Rules has been quoted
above. It provides for the seniority of the members of the
service. It is to be determined by the date of the
substantive appointment in the post.
The petitioner however claims that he is entitled to
get the benefit of his service in the army during the
Emergency, under the provisions of the Emergency
(Concession) Rules;
Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 of the Emergency Concession
Rules reads:
"4 (ii) Seniority:-The period of military service
mentioned in Clause (i) shall be taken into
consideration for the purpose of determining the
seniority of a person who has rendered military
service."
Military service is defined in rule 2 thus:
"For the purpose of these rules, the expression
"military service" means the service rendered by a
person, who had been enrolled or commissioned during
the period of operation of the proclamation of
emergency made by the President under Art. 352 of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
Constitution of India on the 26th October, 1962 in any
of the three wings of the Indian Armed Forces
(including the service as a Warrant Officer) during the
period of the said Emergency or such other service as
may hereafter be declared as military service for the
purpose of these rules. Any period
66
of military training followed by military service shall
also be reckoned as military service.
A perusal of the rule quoted above shows that the
Concession in seniority is admissible (i) in respect of
military services rendered during the operation of emergency
only and not for any military services after the termination
of emergency and (ii) only if the service in the military is
as "enrolled or commissioned service in any of the three
wings of the Indian Armed Forces." The military service of
the petitioner from January 11, 1962 to July 1, 1968 and
again from 31.10.1968 to 22.9.1974 was not during the
operation of emergency in question. Further the petitioner’s
service from October 31, 1969 to September 22, 1974 was not
as an "enrolled or commissioned service in any of the three
wings of the Indian Armed Forces." During this period the
petitioner has been allowed the benefit of seniority under
the Emergency Concession Rules by Order dated 14.12.78 of
the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana in the
following terms:
"In pursuance of provisions of rule 4 (i) and (ii) of
the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession)
Rules, 1965 issued vide Punjab Government Notification
No. GSR-160. Const/Art. 309/65, dated the 20th July
1965 as amended vide Haryana Govt. Notification No.
GSR-182/Const. Art. 309/ Amd (2)-76, dated the 4th
August, 1976. Shri Randhir Singh Dhull, ’a’ Class
Tahsildar is allowed the benefit of service rendered by
him in the Army during the National Emergency as an
Emergency Commissioned Officer for the period from 29th
April 1963 to 10th January, 1968 towards seniority and
his seniority is fixed immediately below Shri Jaswant
Singh Rajput among the ’A’ class Tahsildars. His date
of appointment as Tahsildar will be 27th May 1973.
2. Further his pay is fixed at Rs. 450/- P.M. in the
scale of Rs. 350-25-500/30-650/30-800 with effect from
8.2.78 (his actual date of appointment to the post of
Tahsildar) and his next increment raising his pay to
Rs. 475/-P.M. is 1.2.79. He will not be entitled to any
arrears of pay as a result of the above fixation prior
to 8.2.1978.
3. The above period of Army Service shall count for
pension only after Shri Dhull has deposited the bonus
or gratuity received by him from military authorities.
67
12, The petitioner has not been able to point out that
any of the respondents No. 3 to 18 were given seniority from
the date of acceptance. In fact none of them was accepted
alongwith him by letter dated 13.9.74.
13. The petitioner’s further grievance is that the
military service of the Captain K. Phool Singh, Captain Khem
Singh Lathar, Shri Inder Singh, Captain A. R. Kohar and
Captain B. K. Batra mentioned in para 8 of the petition have
been counted for the benefit of their seniority etc. The
petitioner’s grievance is baseless. Their cases were
different. None of them was given the benefit of his service
from the date he joined as a ’Candidate’. The respondent in
the counter affidavit asserts that not a single ex-army
service Tahsildar Candidate has been allowed the benefit of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
military service from the date of acceptance as class ’A’
Tahsildar candidate.
14. The petitioner has not been able to make out any
case of discrimination and violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. The petition has no merit and is
dismissed. We however leave the parties to bear their own
costs.
15. Mr. Bhagat, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent, submitted that the Writ Petition was barred by
res judicata and in support of his submission he cited a
decision of this Court reported in AIR 1970 S. C. 898. We
need not examine the submission for two reasons:
(i) We have decided the case on merit against the
petitioner and (ii) the petitioner obtained permission of
this Court to file a Writ Petition vide Order 5.9.79 in S.
L. P. No. 4475 of 1979 (Annexure P. 1)
N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
68