HakimuddIn Vs. State of Rajasthan

Hakimuddin vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 08, 1989

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/770115

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/770115
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: S.N. Bhargava and G.K. Sharma, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 08, 1989
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 356 of 1988
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 - Rule 44--Removal--Petitioner passed Patwari examination and served for 23 years--No enquiry made before order of removal--Held, order of removal is invalid.;The impugned order dated 15-12-1987 cannot be said to be a valid order as is amounts to removal without hol...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hakimuddin

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Cases Referred: State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand.
Reported In: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)283; 1989WLN(UC)539

Excerpt

rajasthan land revenue (land records) rules, 1957 - rule 44--removal--petitioner passed patwari examination and served for 23 years--no enquiry made before order of removal--held, order of removal is invalid.;the impugned order dated 15-12-1987 cannot be said to be a valid order as is amounts to removal without holding an enquiry.;writ allowed - - 3. the learned counsel for the state has submitted that the petitioner was appointed irregularly as he has not obtained the patwar school certificate as required by rule 4, rajasthan land revenue (land records) rules, 1957. he has further submitted that the petitioner has not appeared and failed in two patwar examinations and he cannot be exempted from passing the patwar examination as his confidential reports are not satisfactory. but his services cannot be terminated by passing an order like (annexure-2) simply saying that because he was not qualified......land revenue (land records) rules, 1957. he has further submitted that the petitioner has not appeared and failed in two patwar examinations and he cannot be exempted from passing the patwar examination as his confidential reports are not satisfactory. in the order it is also mentioned that a criminal case is pending against him and he remained under suspension for six years. he has placed reliance on 1980 rlw 397 in sang singh v. municipal board, pokaran 1988 lab. ic 26 full bench patna high court reeta mishra v. director. primary education and 1970 sc 1059 state of rajasthan v. fateh chand.4. we have carefully considered these authorities. in the case of sang singh (supra) petitioner had joined his duties on august 3, 1979 and his services were extended for one year and thereafter his services were term inated because he was not qualified. the writ petition itself has been decided on 22nd august, 19k). in the present case the petitioner has been in service continuously right from 1964 till 1987 for neaily 21 years. similarly, in the case of rita mishra (supra) the point involved was 'whether the petitioner was entitled for his pay etc. even though the appointment letter was either forged, fraudulent or illegal. the full bench of patna high court held that 'the state government is not bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel for the acts of its subordinates done in violation of its directions or administrative instructions'. we are not in quarrel with this proposition. in the present case the appointment order of the petitioner itself shows that he had passed the patwar examination from punjab and the government on the basis ofethis of this fact had appointed him as a patwari and he continued to work as such on the said post for 3 years. similarly, in the case of fateh chand (supra) the facts were quite distinguishable. in the present case the impugned order dated 15-12-1987 cannot be said to be a valid order as is amounts to removal without holding an.....

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner was appointed temporarily as Patwari for a period of six months in the first instance vide order dated 24th March, 1964 (Annexure-1). In the appointment order it is also mentioned that the petitioner having passed the Patwar examination from Punjab was being appointed as Patwari and the appointment was subject to the production of a certificate of Medical fitness by a competent Medical Officer. The petitioner continued in service till the order dated 15-12-1987 (Annexure-2) was passed whereby, he was removed from the service. Against this order the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Notices were issued. The State Government has also filed reply. The arguments have been heard and we have perused the record also.

3. The learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner was appointed irregularly as he has not obtained the Patwar School Certificate as required by Rule 4, Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not appeared and failed in two Patwar examinations and he cannot be exempted from passing the Patwar examination as his Confidential Reports are not satisfactory. In the order it is also mentioned that a criminal case is pending against him and he remained under suspension for six years. He has placed reliance on 1980 RLW 397 in Sang Singh v. Municipal Board, Pokaran 1988 Lab. IC 26 Full Bench Patna High Court Reeta Mishra v. Director. Primary Education and 1970 SC 1059 State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand.

4. We have carefully considered these authorities. In the case of Sang Singh (supra) petitioner had joined his duties on August 3, 1979 and his services were extended for one year and thereafter his services were term inated because he was not qualified. The writ petition itself has been decided on 22nd August, 19K). In the present case the petitioner has been in service continuously right from 1964 till 1987 for neaily 21 years. Similarly, in the case of Rita Mishra (supra) the point involved was 'whether the petitioner was entitled for his pay etc. even though the appointment letter was either forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench of Patna High Court held that 'The State Government is not bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel for the acts of its subordinates done in violation of its directions or administrative instructions'. We are not in quarrel with this proposition. In the present case the appointment order of the petitioner itself shows that he had passed the Patwar examination from Punjab and the Government on the basis ofethis of this fact had appointed him as a Patwari and he continued to work as such on the said post for 3 years. Similarly, in the case of Fateh Chand (supra) the facts were quite distinguishable. In the present case the impugned order dated 15-12-1987 cannot be said to be a valid order as is amounts to removal without holding an enquiry. If the petitioner is a dishonest person his services can be terminated after holding a regular enquiry. But his services cannot be terminated by passing an order like (Annexure-2) simply saying that because he was not qualified. This order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. In view of this matter we allow this writ petition and set aside the order dated 15-12-1987 determinating the services of the petitioner and removing him from the services. It will be open for the Government to bold regular enquiry and if the petitioner is found guilty his services can be dispensed with.

6. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1989 Same Parties Hakimuddin vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Service Same Judge S.N. Bhargava and G.K. Sharma, JJ.

Service