KRISHAN KUMAR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MARKET COMMITTEE, BHIWANI, DISTRICT BHIWANI, (HARYANA)versusHARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, PANCHKULA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

         KRISHAN KUMAR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MARKET                                  A
       COMMITTEE, BHIWANI, DISTRICT BHIWANI, (HARYANA)

-                                        v.
       HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD,
          PANCHKULA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

                                 MARCH 31, 1997
                                                                                     B

                  [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)
                                                                 !
                                                             I
           Service Law-Appointment-Tennination on the ground of not possess-
    ing requisite qualification-Validity of-Haryana State Ag1icultural Marketing     C
    Board-Recruitment of Assistant Secretary-Prescribed qualificatio11s-Re-
    quire111ent of three years' experience in Govemment office or Semi Govem-
    ment body-Appointment of appella11t-Expe1ience Ceitificate submitted by
    him-Not found that of Semi-Govemment body-Consequential tennination
    of appointment-Writ challenging Te1111i11atio11 Order-Dismissal by High          D
    Court-AppeaHfeld, ·the High Cowt order does not suffer from any illegality
    for the reason that as 011 the date of application for selection appellant did
    not have the prescribed 3 years expeiience as required by the Rules-Appellant
    has gained sufficient expe1ience but is now baJTed by ag~In these circumstan-
    ces respondent directed to reconsider the matter afresh and take appropriate
    decision to appoint him as assistant Secretaiy.                                  E
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2782 of
    1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.96 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 16133 of 1995.                                  F
            Sudhir Walia and M.S. Dahiya for the Appellant.

            B.S. Chahar and Vinay Garg for the Respondent.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :                         G
            Leave Granted.

         This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
    Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on May 29, 1996 in
    CWP No. 16133/95.                                                                H
                                       471 '
    472                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A         The admitted position is that an advertisement was published by the
    respondent for recruitment to the post of Assistant Secretary of the
    Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board. Out of 11 posts notified for
    recruitment, six posts were reserved for general candidates, 3 posts for
    Scheduled Caste~ and 2 posts for Other Backward Classes. Pursuant
    thereto, the appellant had appealed for consideration of his claim for
B
    appointment. The qualifications prescribed ut1der the Haryana State
    Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974 (for short, the 'Rules')
    are thus:

            "(1) Graduate of recognised University; and
c           (2) Adequate knowledge of the Punjab Agricultural Produce
            Marketing Act, Rules and Regulations; and

            (3) At lease three years experience in Government office/Semi
            Government Body."
D
          The appellant had the experience of working in Haryana Warehous-
    ing Corporation (i) from 6.10.1984 to 4.1.1985, (ii) from 7.1.1985 to
    31.3.1985, (iii) from 6.5.1985 to 28.7.1985, (iv) from 30.7.1985 to 29.10.1985
    and (v) from 2.11.1985 to 5.12.1985. He also had the experience of working
E   in Hissar National Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Hissar be-
    tween 24.4.1988 and 30.4.1991. On the basis thereof, he was selected and
    appointed. He joined duty on August 1, 1992. Subsequently, Writ Petition
    No. 161/95 was filed and by judgment dated January 2, 1995, the High
    Court directed the Board to examine whether the appointments were duly
    made and appointees were duly qualified in accordance with the rules. It
F   was directed further that in case, the candidates were. not qualified, the
    appointments must be deemed to have been set aside. In furtherance
    thereof, a notice was given to the appellant to produce the record. Accord-
    ingly, the appellant produced the record. The authority considered the
    same and held thus :
G            "Shri Krishna Kumar, respondent No. 6 has produced the ex-
             perience certificate of the Hissar National Cooperative House
             Building Society Ltd., Hissar where he has worked as Accountant-
             cum-clerk from 24.4.1988 to 30.4.1991. His appointment is also
             subject to verification of the experience certificate submitted by
H            him. In case, the experience certificate is not found genuine as per
            KRISHAN KR. ASSTI. SECY v. H.S.A. MKTG. BD.                  473

         rules, the Board reserves the right to cancel his appointment."        A
      It is stated that they have examined the certificate and found it to be
genuine but Hissar Cooperative House Building Society was not found to
be a Semi-Government Society. No contribution of the Government fund
was made to the society. Therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed.
Accordingly, his appointment came to be terminated. Calling that order in B
question, he filed writ petition which was dismissed. Thus; this appeal by
special leave.

      The notice was issued by this Court on September 30, 1996 wherein
it was stated as under :
                                                                                c
         "It is reported on instruction by the learned counsel for the
         petitioner that the petitioner is now of 36 years of age and he will
         not be qualified for any other appointment. He also states that the
         petitioner has meritorious record to his credit. Therefore, he
         requests that a notice may be issued to the respondent to consider     D
         his case on sympathetic consideration."

      Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that they
are not willing to consider his case sympathetically. They have stated in
their counter-affidavit in para 3 (f) that the Hissar National Cooperative
House Building Society is not a Semi- Government body as per report of          E
the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana. Thus he does not fulfill the
qualification prescribed under the rules.

       The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he has not
 submitted any illegal certificate. He has submitted the certificates before F
 the authority which was found to be correct. He had sufficient experience
 before he was appointed as Assistant Secretary. It is further urged that
 though it is now found that it is not a semi-Government body, he may be
.considered to be appointed with the requisite qualifications and the ex-
 perience. He has also brought to our notice that the rules had been
 amended deleting the requirement of 3 years experience, by the order of G
 the Government dated October 6, 1995, whereas the order of termination
 came to be made on October 31, 1995. Thus, his case may be considered
 on the footing that he had at the relevant time sufficient experience. The
 learned counsel for the respondent has stated that since the qualification
 is one of the conditions, as found by the High Court and at the relevant H
    474                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A   time, he did not possess that qualification, the dismissal of him from service
    is in accordance with the rules.

           In view of the respective contentions, the question that arises for
    consideration is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in
    Law? Strictly speaking, the High Court Order does not suffer from any
B   illegality for the reason that as on the date of application for selection he
    did not have the prescribed 3 years' experience as required by the Rules.
    In other words, 3 years experienc.e was required as necessary qualification
    for appointment as Assistant Secretary. It is seen that during the period
    between his appointment on January 10, 1992 and allowing of the writ
C   petition, he has gained sufficient experience of working as Assistant
    Secretary and his performance of the duties as Assistant Secretary has not
    also been disputed or any fault found by the respondent. It is seen that he
    is now barred by age. Under these circumstances, we think that the
    respondent should reconsider the matter afresh and take appropriate
     decision to appoint him as Assistant Secretary.
D
         In view of the above legal position and also the factual situation, the
    appeal is allowed and writ is issued but, in the circumstances, without costs.

    T.N.A.                                                       Appeal allowed.