Statutory Service Requirements Under Recruitment Rules Are Mandatory; Can’t Be Overridden By Administrative Approvals : Himachal Pradesh HC
A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma, held that eligibility for promotion or recruitment through limited competitive examination must strictly comply with the statutory service requirement under the applicable service rules, and administrative approvals cannot override these mandatory eligibility criteria.
Background Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Copyist in the Civil and Sessions Division, Kullu on 30.12.2016 under the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff Rules, 2012. He was placed on probation for a period of two years. He was transferred to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh as a Clerk on 02.06.2018. His transfer was subject to specific conditions that he would forfeit his earlier seniority in the previous establishment. Further that he would not claim any seniority in the future based on that service. Lastly that he has to complete his remaining probation period in the High Court Registry. On 04.08.2022, the High Court issued a circular to fill eight posts of Translators through a limited competitive examination from among eligible Class-III and Class-IV employees of the Registry. Further it was required that they should have completed five years of service in the Registry of the High Court as of the cut-off date of 20.09.2022.
The petitioner applied for the post. He claimed that his service from 30.12.2016 to 01.06.2018 in the District Judiciary should be counted along with his High Court service, thereby fulfilling the five-year requirement. However, his application was rejected on 30.01.2023 for not meeting the eligibility criteria. He submitted a representation on 01.02.2023, relying on a precedent which involved a contractual employee whose prior service had been counted for limited service benefits. The petitioner’s representation was accepted by the Grievance Committee. The committee recommended that he should be allowed to appear for the examination. Further it was approved by the Chief Justice.
Therefore, the petitioner appeared for the written test where he secured 56 out of 90 marks. However, other Registry employees raised objections on 22.06.2023 before the final result was declared. They argued that the petitioner did not fulfil the required five years of service in the High Court Registry. The Chief Justice accepted the objections and disqualified the petitioner from selection. Whereas the process for other eligible candidates was allowed. The petitioner further submitted a representation dated 30.06.2023 challenging the decision but it was not accepted.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to declare him eligible for the post of Translator.
It was submitted by the petitioner that if his prior service from 30.12.2016 to 01.06.2018 in the Civil and Sessions Division was considered then he had completed five years of service. It was contended that the earlier service which was outside the High Court Registry, should have been counted for the purpose of determining his eligibility. It was further argued that once he was declared eligible by a competent authority, the reversal amounted to a violation of the principle of estoppel, because he had relied upon the eligibility confirmation to participate in the examination.
It was additionally contended by the petitioner that the High Court had previously allowed similar benefit in the case of a contractual employee, whose prior service in the District Judiciary was counted for service benefits. The petitioner submitted that he was similarly placed and deserved equal treatment. Lastly, it was argued that the recruitment rules did not explicitly prohibit counting past service rendered in the District Judiciary. Further, the authorities had misinterpreted the rules to deny him his rightful claim.
On the other hand, it was contended by the respondents that the petitioner had completed only about four years of service, falling short of the required eligibility. It was further contended that the applicable recruitment was governed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and the Members of Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Conditions of Service, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 2015, which clearly stated that only Class-III and Class-IV employees of the High Court Registry with five years of service were eligible to appear in the limited competitive examination. It was also submitted that the petitioner’s transfer to the High Court Registry was made on the clear condition that his past service in the District Judiciary would not count for seniority or any future claims. Therefore, the petitioner could not seek to rely on prior service to claim eligibility.
Additionally, it was contended that the earlier recommendation of the Grievance Committee to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination was an administrative error. Further it was made without properly examining the legal position under the rules. It was submitted that administrative decisions cannot override recruitment rules, and once the mistake was discovered, the competent authority had the right to correct it by disqualifying the petitioner at the interview stage.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the court that the petitioner was required to have five years of service in the High Court Registry as per the 2015 Rules to be eligible for the post of Translator. This requirement was clearly laid down in Schedule-III (Part C) of the Rules. It was further noted by the court that the petitioner’s service from 30.12.2016 to 01.06.2018 in the Civil and Sessions Division, could not be counted because upon transfer to the High Court Registry, the petitioner had accepted the terms which included forfeiture of past seniority and no claim on prior service for future benefits.
It was held by the court that the petitioner had less than five years of service in the High Court Registry as on the cut-off date of 20.09.2022, therefore, rendering him ineligible under the statutory rules. It was further held by the court that the Grievance Committee’s recommendation of eligibility accepted by the Chief Justice was made without proper consideration of the Rules and the conditions of transfer. It was further observed that administrative approval cannot override statutory eligibility criteria. Therefore, the authorities were justified in rectifying the error by disqualifying the petitioner at the interview stage.
It was held by the Court that the principle of estoppel does not apply against statutory provisions. Further the decision in Saurabh Kumar case was distinguished from present case and it was held by the court that it pertained only to service benefits and not to seniority or promotional eligibility. The case of Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Anr. v. M.C. Sheela Evanjalin & Ors. was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that educational qualifications alone do not confer a right to appointment unless all eligibility criteria, including service requirements are fulfilled.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Name : Yashwant Mandhotra v. Hon’ble High Court of HP and others
Case No. : CWP No. 4241 of 2023
Counsel for the Petitioner : K.B. Khajuria, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents : Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate with Nitin Thakur, Advocate
