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