{"id":310625,"date":"2024-01-03T15:00:15","date_gmt":"2024-01-03T09:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=310625"},"modified":"2024-01-03T15:05:17","modified_gmt":"2024-01-03T09:35:17","slug":"explained-supreme-court-verdict-relevant-date-determining-candidate-eligibility-haryana-civil-service-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/03\/explained-supreme-court-verdict-relevant-date-determining-candidate-eligibility-haryana-civil-service-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"Explained| Supreme Court\u2019s verdict on relevant date for determining candidate’s eligibility under Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal against the order passed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court relating to recruitment and appointment to the posts in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch), the division bench of MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar*<\/span>, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order and affirming the Single Judge order, held that as on the date of consideration, disciplinary action was contemplated against the respondent, therefore he was rightly held to be ineligible for selection of his name in Register A-1.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

The process of recruitment to the posts in the Service are governed by Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 (‘Rules, 2008’). Part II of the Rules is titled ‘Recruitment to Service’. For a person to be appointed in the Service, Rule 73 requires that such person’s name must be found in ‘one or other of the registers of Accepted Candidates to be maintained under these rules. Rule 84 requires the Chief Secretary to maintain ‘Registers of Accepted Candidates’. Further, Rule 17 provides that the Government of Haryana shall make appointments to the Service from amongst the candidates whose names are entered in the various registers on a rotational basis.<\/p>\n

The respondent was one among several candidates who was seeking appointment to the post in the Service. He was appointed to the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management in 2008 as a Naib Tehsildar. The Department has found the respondent, among several others, to be ineligible for selection to Register on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility condition set out in subclause (iii) of clause (a) of Rule 9.<\/p>\n

According to the Department, though the respondent was not facing any disciplinary proceedings, there was action being contemplated against him as on date of consideration, which resulted in him being declared ineligible for selection.<\/p>\n

However, as per the respondent he was neither facing disciplinary proceedings, nor was any action being contemplated against him, and therefore, the action of declaring him ineligible was erroneous, thus he challenged before the High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent. On appeal, the division bench of the High Court has set aside the order of the Single Judge and directed the State to take steps to consider the case of respondent for appointment from Register A-1. Thus, the State filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Issues and Analysis:<\/p>\n