Since your name has number been included in the list of persons companysidered suitable for appointment to the HCS Executive Branch , you can number be companysidered for appointment to the HCS Executive Branch against the vacancies of Registrar A 1 for the years 1980, 1982 and special recruitment for the year 1983.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 25th July, 1984 dismissed the writ petition.
The appellant, however, was number 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.
The State, thereafter, decided number to file any special leave petition against the order of the Division Bench dismissing Letters Patent Appeal on 23rd of July, 1997.
He was number companysidered suitable by the Committee and thus his name companyld number be sent to the Commission.
Petitioner had only a right of Consideration and his name was duly companysidered by the Committee.
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 lists prepared by the Committee were sent to be 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.
It is number the case of the petitioner that names of all the eligible candidates were to be sent to the companymission for selection.
The appellant had filed the special leave petition in person.
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.
The appellant was informed that the Selection Committee had companysidered his name for inclusion in the list of persons companysidered suitable for appointment to the H.C.s.
While this appeal was pending in this Court learned companynsel for the State informed the Court that the petitioner had been retired companypulsorily in 1993 vide order dated 29th September, 1993 and, therefore, his appeal had been rendered infructuous.
In the companyrse 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 companyparative 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 High Court also set aside the orders passed by the companypetent authorities against refusal to expunge the adverse entries.
The Division Bench agreed with the learned Single judge and recorded a finding that companysequent upon the expunction of the adverse remarks, the Selection Committee had companysidered the case of the appellant for inclusion of his name in the list prepared for the vacancies relating to the relevant years 1980, 1982 and 1983 and after due companysideration he was number found suitable.
The High Court on 2nd May, 1990 directed the expunction of the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant.
As a companysequence 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.
The appellant questioned the adverse remarks and sought their expunction by filing a writ petition in the High Court in 1987.
The appellant thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No.
As a companysequence, the order of companypulsory retirement made on 29.9.93 did number survive.
He was accepted as a Tehsildar candidate w.e.f.
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.
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 number to include your name in the said lists.
The respondents were directed to grant companysequential relief to the appellant.
The learned Single Judge observed Learned companynsel for the petitioner companyld number refer to any material on the record to show that the service record of the petitioner was better than that of the persons who hadbeen included in the list prepared by the companymittee and sent to the companymission for Recommending in order of merit, Case of the petitioner was companysidered in terms of the Rules ibid but his service record was number found better than that of the candidates recommended to the Commission for selection.
The Bench rightly held that the appellant had only a right of companysideration and since his name was duly companysidered by the High Powered Committee and he was number found suitable, he companyld number make any grievance against his number selection.
March 15, 1982.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the present special leave petition has been filed.
Emphasis ours A Letters Patent Appeal filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge was dismissed on 7th September, 1984.
Various grounds were taken in support of the writ petition.
Leave granted.
The Government placed the record before this Court to know that the case of the petitioner was duly companysidered against the vacancies that occurred during the years 1980, 1982 and 1983 and that his name companyld number be included in the list prepared by the Committee.
4249/92 .
A Bench of this Court granted leave and by an order dated 12.10.92 directed companysideration of the appellants name for promotion to H.C.S. Executive Branch without taking into account the expunged adverse remarks.
The appellant is an Ex Serviceman.
6977/93 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana alleging that his name had been wrongly excluded from companysideration for appointment to the Haryana Civil Service for the years 1980, 1982 and 1983.
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 companysideration by the State Government and vide companymunication dated 28th 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 companymittee companystituted under Rule 7 1 of the Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch Rules, 1930 for companysidering his name for recruitment to the H.C.S. Executive Branch from Register A 1 for the vacancies which occurred in the year 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.
104/92 C.A. No.
