IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.747 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.8.2009
Des Raj and others.
-----Appellants
Vs.
Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. of
Haryana and others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate
for the appellants.
-----
ORDER:
1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by judgment of the
learned Single Judge, dismissing their writ petition seeking
direction for permitting them to appear in the departmental
Accountant Examination.
3. The appellants are working as Safai Karamcharis or
Beldars in the office of Municipal Council, Rohtak. Under the
provisions of Haryana Municipal Departmental Accountant
Examination Rules, 1985, a departmental examination is held for
appointment as Accountant. Rule 2 of the said Rules lays down
the eligibility conditions of qualification and experience.
LPA No.747 of 2009 2
Experience required is in dealing with payment of vouchers,
maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets
and adjustment etc. in a Government office or in the office of a
local authority. The appellants applied for the said examination,
but they were held not to be eligible. Aggrieved thereby, the writ
petition was filed.
4. Learned Single Judge held that they could not be
treated to have the requisite experience. It was observed:-
“…..Concededly, the petitioners are working as
Beldars and Safai Karamcharis. Their duties and
responsibilities as Beldars and Safai Karamchari have
nothing to do with the payment of vouchers,
maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts,
budgets and adjustments etc. in the office of local
authority. With the petition, neither any material has
been annexed nor any averment has been made that
on the post of Beldar or Safar Karamchari, the
petitioners are dealing with the payment of vouchers,
maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts,
budgets and adjustment etc. The petitioners are class
IV employees and they have nothing to do with the
aforesaid duties and they have no experience in
dealing with the payments of vouchers, maintenance
of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets and
adjustments etc.”
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on
account of certain contingencies, the appellants gained such
LPA No.747 of 2009 3
experience, even though they were employed as Safai
Karamcharis and Beldars and to that effect, certificates were
issued to them by the Municipal Council, Rohtak, but the
Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the
Government rejected the same by assuming that class IV
employees were not eligible. To support this submission, he
made a reference to letter dated 1.12.2008, Annexure P-4.
Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that one
person, similarly placed, was considered to be qualified, as per
letter dated 15.9.1992, Annexure P-7.
7. We are unable to accept the submissions. Having
regard to nature of jobs for which the appellants were deputed, it
was not possible to hold that they were handling the work of
accounts and gained the requisite experience. Certificates relied
upon do not indicate that they were required to discharge such
duties in any given situation for required period. As regard
Annexure P-7, we are of the view that merely because some
other person has been allowed to appear, did not confer any right
on the appellants to claim eligibility, in absence of their having the
requisite experience as per rules. No interference was, thus,
called for with the view taken by the Financial Commissioner and
Principal Secretary in the impugned letter dated 27.3.2009,
Annexure P-6.
8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
LPA No.747 of 2009 4
9. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
August 20, 2009 ( DAYA
CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE