http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: KRISHAN KUMAR,ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MARKET COMMITTEE,BHIWANI,

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD,PANCHKULA THROUGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  O R D E R      Leave granted      This appeal  by special  leave arises fromthe judgment of theDivision Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made onMay 29,1996 inCWP No.16133/95.      The admitted  position isthat  an  advertisement was published by  the respondent  for recruitment to the post of Assistant  Secretary   of  theHaryana StateAgricultural Marketing Board.  Out of  11 posts notified forrecruitment, six posts  werereserved for general candidates, 3 posts for Scheduled Caste and 2posts for  Other  Backward  Classes. Pursuant   thereto,   the   appellanthad   appealed for considerationof    his   claim   for  appointment. The qualifications prescribed    under   the   Haryana   State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974 (for short, the ‘Rules’) are  thus:      "(1)   Graduateof    recognised      University; and      (2)  Adequate   knowledgeof   the      PunjabAgricultural Produce      Marketing  Act,   Rules     and      Regulations; and      (3) At lease threeyears experience      in     Government     office/Semi      GovernmentBody."      The appellant  hadthe experience of working in Haryana Warehousing Corporation(i) from 6.10.1984 to 4.1.1985,(ii) from  7.1.1985 to  31.3.1985,  (iii) from6.5.1985  to 28.7.1985, (iv) from 30.7.1985 to 29.10.1985and (v)from 2.11.1985 to  5.12.1985.  He  also  had the  experience  of working in   Hissar  Nationalcooperative  House  Building SocietyLtd., Hissar between 24.4.1988 and 30.4.1991. On the basis thereof, he was selected and appointed. He joinedduty on August  1, 1992.  Subsequently, Writ Petition No. 161/95 was filed  and by  judgment dated  January 2, 1995, theHigh Court directed the Board to examine whether theappointments were  duly  made  and  appointees  were duly  qualified  in accordance withrules. It was directed further that in case, the candidateswere not qualified, theappointments must be deemed to  havebeen  set aside.  In furtherance  thereof, a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

notice was  given  to  the  appellant  producethe  record. Accordingly,  the   appellant  produced  the  record. The authority considered the same and held thus:      "Shri  Krishna   Kumar,  respondent      No.6 has  produced the  experience      certificate of  the Hissarnational      Cooperative HouseBuilding Society      Ltd., Hissar wherehe has worked as      Accountant-cum-Clerk from 24.4.1988      to30.4.1991.  His appointment  is      also subject to verification of the      experiencecertificate submitted by      him.  Incase,the   experience      certificate is notfound genuine as      per rules, the Board  reserves the      right to cancel his appointment."      Itis  stated that they have  examined the certificate and found  it to  be genuine  but Hissar  Cooperative  House Building Society  was not  found  to  be  a  Semi-Government Society. No  contribution of the Government fund was made to the  society.Accordingly,  his  appointmentcame  to  be terminated. Calling  that order in question,  he filedwrit petition whichwas dismissed.Thus, this appeal by special leave.      The notice was issue  by this  Court on  September 30, 1996 wherein itwas stated as under:      "It is  reported on  instruction by      the   learned   counsel   for   the      petitionerthat  the petitioner  is      now of  36years of age and he will      not  be  qualified for  any  other      appointment. He  also  states  that      the  petitioner   has   meritorious      record to his credit. Therefore, he      requests  that   a notice may  be      issued   to   the respondent   to      consider his  case on  sympathetic      consideration."      Counter-affidavit has  been  filed by  the  respondent statingthat  they arenot willing  to consider  hiscase sympathetically. They have stated in their counter-affidavit in para 3(f) that  theHissarNational  Cooperative  House Building Society is nota semi-Government body as per report of theRegistrar, CooperativeSocieties, Haryana.  Thus he does not  fulfil  the  qualification  prescribed  under the rules.      The learned  counsel for  the appellant  has  contended that he not  submitted any  illegal  certificate.  He has submitted the  certificates before  theauthority  which was found to  be correct. He has sufficientexperience before he was appointed  as Assistant  Secretary.It  is further urged that though it is now found that it is not a semi-Government body,  he  maybe  consideredto  beappointed  with the requisite qualifications  and the  experience. He  hasalso broughtto  ournoticethat  the  rules  had  been  amended deleting the requirement of 3 years experience,by the order of theGovernment dated  October 6, 1995, whereas the order of terminationcame to be made  on October 31, 1995. Thus, his case may beconsidered on the footing that he had at the relevant time sufficient experience. The learned counsel for the respondenthas stated  that sincethe qualification is one ofthe condition, as foundby the High Court and at the relevant time,he didnot possess  that qualification, the dismissal of  him fromserviceis  in accordance  with the rules.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    Inview ofthe respective contention, the questionthat arises for  consideration is:  whether the viewtaken by the High Court  is correctin law? Strictly speaking, theHigh Court order  does not  suffer from  anyillegality  for the reason that  ason  thedate ofapplication forselection he did not have the  prescribed 3years experience as required by theRule. In other word, 3 years experiencewas required as necessary  qualification  for  appointment  as  Assistant Secretary. It  is seenthat during  the period between his appointment ofthe writ appointment onJanuary10, 1992 and allowing of  the writ  petition, he  has  gained  sufficient experience  of working  as  Assistant Secretary  and his performance ofthe duties  as Assistant  Secretary has not also been  disputed or any fault found by the respondent. It is  seen   that he  is now  barred  by  age.Under  these circumstances,we   think  that   the respondent   should reconsider thematter afresh  and takeappropriate decision to appoint him as Assistant Secretary.      Inview  of the  above  legal  position  and  also the factualsituation,  theappeal is allowed and writ is issued but, inthe circumstance, without costs.