T. R. Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - constitutionality of rule - service law and rule 20 of punjab civil service (executive branch) rules, 1930 - constitutionality of rule 20 challenged - high court upheld constitutionality of rule 20 - appeal be special leave - apex court held, no error in decision of high court. - indian penal code, 1890 section 300: [dr. arijit pasayat, d.k. jain & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] murder accused alleged to have assaulted deceased with bricks and sharp edged weapons -prosecution relied on evidence of complainant, mother and wife of deceased - presence of complainant and mother of deceased not mentioned n fir medical evidence not disclosing that injuries could have been possible by sharp edged weapons and bricks -blood stained axe belonging to complainant not seized - evidence showing that it was accused who shifted deceased to hospital - prosecution version found doubtful held, accused entitled to acquittal. order1. we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length on the question of constitutionality of rule 20, punjab civil service (executive branch) rules 1930 as applicable to the members of the haryana civil service (executive branch). we have gone through the judgment of the division bench of the punjab and haryana high court upholding the constitutionality of the said rule against which this appeal is filed. we do not find any error in the judgment of the high court. this appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.slp(c) nos. 14625 and 14518 of 19852. shri k. r. nagaraja, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press these special leave petitions in view of the decision in civil appeal no. 1537 of 1985. these special leave petition are dismissed.w.p. no. 684 of 19863. this writ petition is dismissed in view of the judgment delivered by us in civil appeal no. 1537 of 1985.w.p. nos. 675 and 710 of 19864. the constitutionality of the seniority rule contained in rule 20, punjab civil service (executive branch) rules, 1930 has been upheld by this court in civil appeal no. 1537 of 1985. if the petitioners in these petitions, have any grievance as regards the application of that rule in so far as they are concerned while determining the seniority it is open to them to file fresh petitions with necessary allegations before the high court. the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length on the question of constitutionality of Rule 20, Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules 1930 as applicable to the members of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). We have gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the constitutionality of the said Rule against which this appeal is filed. We do not find any error in the judgment of the High Court. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

SLP(C) Nos. 14625 and 14518 of 1985

2. Shri K. R. Nagaraja, learned Counsel for the petitioners does not press these Special Leave Petitions in view of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 1537 of 1985. These Special Leave Petition are dismissed.

W.P. No. 684 of 1986

3. This writ petition is dismissed in view of the judgment delivered by us in Civil Appeal No. 1537 of 1985.

W.P. Nos. 675 and 710 of 1986

4. The constitutionality of the seniority rule contained in Rule 20, Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 has been upheld by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1537 of 1985. If the petitioners in these petitions, have any grievance as regards the application of that rule in so far as they are concerned while determining the seniority it is open to them to file fresh petitions with necessary allegations before the High Court. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.