Case title: 

State of Haryana & Ors v. Dinesh Singh & Anr

Date of Order: 

14th December, 2023

Bench: 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar 

Parties: 

Appellant(s): State of Haryana & Ors.

Respondent(s): Dinesh Singh & Anr

SUBJECT:

The case dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’) involved a dispute over the interpretation of Rule 9, which outlines eligibility criteria for the Haryana Civil Service, specifically, regarding the cut-off date and whether disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the respondent, Dinesh Singh, as of the relevant date for eligibility determination (31.08.2019). The court clarified the application of the cut-off date, defined the term 'contemplate,' and affirmed Dinesh Singh's ineligibility due to a decision to charge-sheet him.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

The Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 [HCS]

OVERVIEW:

• Respondent no. 1 (Dinesh Singh) was a candidate who sought an appointment to the post in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive branch) and was appointed as a Naib Tehsildar in 2008 in the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management.
• The respondent was found ineligible for selection under Rule 9 of HCS.
• The appellant alleged that the respondent no. 1 was negligent in performing official duties on 5^th and 6^th January 2019, during the Haryana Teacher’s Eligibility test.
• A letter was issued against the respondent recommending a formal inquiry into the alleged negligence by the Deputy Commissioner.
• On 5^th February 2019 it was determined that a charge sheet be issued against respondent no.1 regarding the alleged negligence.
• As per the eligibility conditions under Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) of the Rules as of 31^st August 2019, initiating disciplinary actions against respondent no. 1 was considered.
• The Division Bench's judgment held that the rule itself provided for this cut-off date and rejected the argument that subsequent events or litigation could alter it.
• The High Court deemed the Single Judge's cut-off date of 12.07.2019 as based on a wrong presumption.
• The High Court’s impugned decision is for being contested before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether 01.11.18 can be said to be the cut-off date for all eligibility conditions under Rule 9(1)(a) and (b)?
• Whether the respondent was eligible for selection to be made in Register A-1?
• Whether it can be said that there was any disciplinary action pending or contemplated against the respondent on the date of consideration?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:

• The court had erred in considering 1^st November of 2018 as the cut-off date for determination of eligibility conditions under Rule 9(a) and (b).
• The Government’s letter dated 9^th July 2019 clarifies that 1^st November would be the cut-off date solely for the determination of the age-related criterion.
• Considering 1^st November as the cut-off date for all eligibility conditions would result in a candidate not having any disciplinary action taken against him on 1^st November, but later on, would still be eligible, which would be against the objectives of the Rule-maker.
•  Appellant sought to establish a link between the charge-sheet decision and the respondent’s ineligibility for selection.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

• Rule 9 specifies only one cut-off date all the eligibility conditions for selection.
• The notification date 30.05.19 specifies that conditions must be met the recommended individuals as of 1^st November covering conditions related to contemplated or pending disciplinary proceedings.
• The Government’s letter of 9^th July is viewed as changes to the set rules.
• The State had not asserted the date of consideration being 31^st August 2019, but only contended 1^st November being the cut-off date for all eligibility criteria.
• There is no evidence suggesting non-contemplation of disciplinary action against the respondent.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The original Rule 9 outlined eligibility criteria, including completion of eight years of continuous government service, age requirements, no pending disciplinary proceedings, and being a graduate.
• The rule underwent an amendment in 2017, altering the age criterion to 50 years and in April 2017, a communication specified conditions for filling nine vacancies up to 2016, emphasizing eligibility conditions as of 01.11.2016.
• The Division Bench's assertion that 01.11.2018 served as a uniform cut-off for all conditions was deemed unfounded.
• The respondent was declared ineligible under Rule 9 due to a decision to charge-sheet him under Rule 7.
• The respondent's argument centered on the cut-off date as 01.11.2018, asserting no contemplation of disciplinary proceedings on that date.
• ‘Contemplate' involves thinking deeply or having a probable intention. The Court referenced H. Surendra Shetty v. Vijaya Bank and P.R. Nayak v. Union of India to define 'contemplate' as a mental process before formal proceedings.
• Respondent no. 1 implicitly admitted a decision to initiate disciplinary action on 09.01.2019.
• The cut-off date for Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) was established as 31.08.2019.
• The Deputy Commissioner's letter on 09.01.2019 initiates a recommendation for a formal inquiry and the decision to charge-sheet made on 05.02.2019.
• Subsequent events, including the charge sheet and its dropping, are considered insignificant to eligibility inquiry.
• As of the date of consideration (31.08.2019), disciplinary action was contemplated against respondent no.1.
• The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's order, and affirmed the Single Judge's order dated 23.04.2021 with specific observations.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court clarified that the cut-off date of 01.11.2018 applied only to age-related criteria and upheld 31.08.2019 as the relevant date for Rule 9(1)(a)(iii), concerning disciplinary proceedings. The term 'contemplate' was defined as a mental process preceding formal action. The respondent, Dinesh Singh, was found ineligible due to a decision to charge-sheet him on 05.02.2019. The Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that disciplinary action was contemplated as of 31.08.2019. The appeal was allowed, overturning the Division Bench's order, and costs were awarded