Summary
The Supreme Court upheld exclusion of a Tehsildar from Register A-I for Haryana Civil Service recruitment because disciplinary action was contemplated on the date of consideration. The age cut-off of 1 November 2018 did not govern that separate eligibility condition. Later dropping of the proceedings did not alter eligibility on the relevant date.
Issues
- Which date governed the disciplinary-status condition for selection to Register A-I.
- Whether contemplated disciplinary action made the candidate ineligible despite no charge-sheet on the relevant date.
Provisions considered
- Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) and (iii), Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008The age condition and disciplinary-status condition had different temporal requirements. Applying the unchallenged disciplinary bar, eligibility was assessed on 31 August 2019, the date of consideration, rather than the age cut-off. (¶¶ 17, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 47, 49, 50)
Held
- The 1 November 2018 cut-off related to age and the associated treatment of experience and ACRs. The clarificatory letter of 9 July 2019 required disciplinary proceedings, vigilance clearance and integrity to be assessed up to consideration. The earlier letter did not establish a continuing uniform cut-off contrary to that clarification and the rule. (¶¶ 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Rule 9 required both absence of pending proceedings and absence of contemplated action. Contemplation precedes formal charges: it concerns an objectively grounded intention or probable course of action rather than requiring completed initiation of proceedings. The rule’s validity was not challenged and was applied as it stood. (¶¶ 21, 22, 32, 33, 34, 47, 48)
- A decision to charge-sheet the candidate had been taken on the file before 31 August 2019 following a report of absence from official duty. Disciplinary action was therefore contemplated on the relevant date. Subsequent issue of a charge-sheet and dropping of proceedings did not change that date-specific assessment. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 50)
Result
State’s appeal allowed. The Division Bench judgment was set aside and the Single Judge’s order dismissing the challenge was affirmed, subject to the Supreme Court’s observations.