Holding

Inspectors and Sub‑Inspectors, being vested with executive authority and performing sovereign functions, are officers and satisfy the "executive officer" experience requirement.

Summary

The Haryana Public Service Commission advertised recruitment for District Food and Supplies Officers, requiring five/three years of experience as an executive officer. Inspectors and Sub‑Inspectors of the Food and Supplies Department applied, but the Commission demanded a certificate from the State Government confirming such experience, which was not issued, leading to their exclusion. The appellant, Mohinder Singh, challenged this exclusion before the High Court, which dismissed his writ petition; the appellate court upheld that dismissal. The Supreme Court examined whether Inspectors/Sub‑Inspectors qualify as "executive officers" in the absence of a statutory definition, relying on common‑parlance meanings, dictionary definitions, and prior case law. It held that these posts, vested with executive authority, are indeed officer positions, making the appellant eligible for consideration. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' orders, and directed the State Government and the Haryana Public Service Commission to consider the appellant’s claim for recruitment, appointing him if he is found qualified.

Issues considered

Whether the post of Inspector or Sub‑Inspector in the Haryana Food and Supplies Department qualifies as an "executive officer" for the purpose of the recruitment qualification.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 146, s. Article 16, s. Article 229
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 21

Subjects

executive officerpublic service commissionrecruitment qualificationdefinition of officerArticle 16service jurisprudenceHaryana

Judgment

.,.
" MOHINDER SINGH
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

APRIL 7, 1989
{ [RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] B
• Civil Services: Haryana State-Recruitment to post of District
- Food anti Supplies Officer-Qualifications for-'Five/three years ex-
perience as an executive officer'-lnspector/Sub-Inspector in Food and-
Supplies Department-Whether 'executive officer' eligible
+ Words and Phrases: 'Officer'-'Emp/oyee'-Meaning of. c
The Haryana Public Service Commission advertised the filling'up
of 4 posts of District Food and Supplies Officers by direct recruit-
ment, and prescribed "five/three years' experience as an executive
officer" as one of the essential qualifications. The appellant who was D
- working as Inspector/Sub-Inspector in the Food and Supplies Depart-
ment, applied for the post. Some other Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors also
applied. Subsequently, the Special Secretary to the Haryana Govern-
ment in the Food and Supplies Department wrote to the Commission
affirming, inter alia, that the work of Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors of his

- Department was of executive nature though they were not officers. The E
Commission, however, required the appellants to produce a certificate
from the State Government to the effect that they had the requisite
experience of executive officer. The State Government did not issue
" such a certificate, and in its absence the Commission did not consider
the Inspector and Sub-Inspector candidates as having the requisite
qualification. F•

Thereupon, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court
claiming that he had the reqnisite qualification. The learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition and the Division Bench dismissed the
appeal therefrom.
'G
Before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that
the post of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors belonged to the category of
execntive office, and that in earlier years certain similarly sitnated
Inspectors and Sub-In~pectors of the Department had been appointed
-on that basis.
H
437
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 2 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, it was,

HELD: (1) It was conceded in the Department's letter to the
Commission that the Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors held executive
posts. [440B]
B
(2) None of the parties has placed any definition of the term \--'
'Officer' from any Haryana Statute. It is also not the contention of any 't·
of the parties that the administrative orders gave a definition to the
term. In such a situation, the common parlance meaning of 'officer' has
to be accepted for the purpose of finding out whether Inspectors and
Sub-Inspectors held the post of officer. [440F]
-
c
(3) In service jurisprudence even ministerial employees have been ~·
referred to as officers. The terms 'Officer' and 'employee' put together
obviously signify the grade of the establishment or post held, the officer
being higher in grade to employee. [441G)
D
( 4) A person i.nvested with the authority of an office has been
treated as an officer. [441C-D]

(5) Keeping in view the nature and duty assigned to the Inspector
or the Sub-Inspector working id the Department to whom powers have
E been delegated, it cannot be doubted that the holders of posts of Ins-
pector and Sub-Inspector are officers. [441G-H]

G.A. Monterio v. The State of Ajmer, [1956) SCR 682 and
Bajrang Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, [1976) 3 SCR 497, referred
to.
F
(6) The appellant was entitled to be considered for recruitment in 1980
and since his claim had been over-looked without justification, the State
and the Haryana Public Service Commission are bound to consider his
case now on the basis that he was entitled to recruitment in 1980. In
case the appellant is found qualified, he shall be selected for the post
G and duly appointed. [442E)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 294
of 1982.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.1981 of the Punjab and
H Haryana High Court in LP.A. 857of1981.
MOHINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [MISRA, J.] 439

P.P. Rao, R. Venkataramani, U.G. Pragasan and S.M. Garg for A
the Appellant.

Mahabir Singh, .Subhash Sharma and C.M. Nayar for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal is by special leave and is

-
directed against the appellate judgment of a Division Bench ··of the
Pun jab and Haryan~ High Court upholding the decision of a learned
Single Judge of that Court by dismissing the appeal in limine. The
Haryana Public Service Commission advertised the filling-up of one
Post of D.F.S.C. and 4 posts of District Food and Supplies Officers by
c
direct recruitment. The Commission prescribed, inter alia, that one of
the essential qualifications shall be "five/three years' experience as an
executive officer in a commercial organisation of Government or Semi-
Govemment office before or after acquiring the academic degree" and
the Special Secretary to Haryana Government in the Food and D
Supplies Department, on 20th of February, 1981, wrote to the' Secretary
of the Commission affirming that position and added that:

"Certain Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors of this Depart-
ment seem to have sent their applications (advance copies)
to the Commission for these posts. The work of Inspectors/

-
E
Sub-Inspectors is of executive nat'\re though they are not
officers. As such, in case the Commission feels that they
fulfil the qualifications for the posts in question, this
department have no objection to the names of the
Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors who have applied directly to the
·Commission, to be considered for these posts." F

The Commission called the appellant and other similarly placed
candidates for interview but required them to produce certificates
from the State Government to the effect that they had the requisite
experience of executive officer. The State Government, however, did
not issue such certificates and in their absence the Commission did not G
consider the Inspector and Sub-Inspector candidates as having the
requisite qualification for being candidates for the post. The selection
was undertaken excluding them. Thereupon a writ petition was filed
before the High Court claiming that the appellant had the requisite
qualification having been an executive officer for the requisite period
and his exclusion was unjustified and the selection made by the Com- H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A mission was hft on account of infraction of the provisions of Article 16
of the (.::onstitution. The learned Single Judge negatived this stand and
dismissed the writ petition and the Division Bench upheld the decision
of the Single Judge by dismissing the appeal in limine.

In this appeal the sole question for consideration is whether
B Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Food and Supplies Department are
executive officers. That they held executive posts and for the required
period was conceded in Government letter of 21st of February, 1981.
It has, therefore, to be found out whether J;nspectors and Sub-
Inspectors could be treated as officers. -
The selected candidates were not made parties to the writ peti-
C tion. A civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to add them as
party-respondents to the appeal and that application had been placed
for hearing along with the appeal.

Mr. P.P. Rao appearing in support of the appeal has contended
--(>that the post of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors belonged to the cate-
gory of executive office and the High Court, therefore, came to a
wrong conclusion. In earlier years certain similarly situated Inspectors
and Sub-Inspectors of the Qepartment had been appointed on the
basis that they satisfied the requi.J:ements of clause (c) of the advertise-
ment and there was no justification for a different basis when further
E recruitment was.undertaken.in 1980.

None of the parties has placed any definition of the term
'Officer' from any Haryana Statute. It is not the contention of counsel
-
appearing for any of the parties that the administrative orders gave a
definition to the term. In such a situation, the common parlance mean-
F ing of 'officer' has to be accepted for the purpose of finding out
whether Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors held the post of Officer. The
ordinary dictionary meaning of the term 'Officer' is:

"a person appointed or elected to a position of responsibi-
lity or authority in a Government, society etc."
G
·Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (5th Edition) has given a variety of
instance of "officer" with reference to different statutes. Some of the
instances given therein do support Mr. Rao's stand that an Inspector
or Sub-Inspector would indeed be an 'officer' inasmuch as under
statutory orders made in exercise of powers conferred under the
H Essential Commodities Act on the State Government, authority has
•(

MOHINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [MISRA, J.) 441

been vested in these categories of officers to exercise jurisdiction.
A
Black's Law Dictionary states:

"In determining whether one is an 'officer' or
'employee', important tests are the tenure by which a posi-
tion is held, whether its duration is defined by the statute or B
ordinance creating it, or whether it is temporary or trans-
ient or for a time fixed only by agreement; whether it is
created by an appointment or election, or merely by a con-

- tract of employment by which the rights of the parties are
regulated; whether the compensation is by a salary or fees
fixed by law, or by a sum agreed upon by the contract of
hiring." c
A person invested with the authority of an office has been treated as an
officer.

In Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition-Volume 29A) an D
'Officer' has been stated to mean:

"a person who is invested with some portion of the func-
tions of government to be exercised for the public benefit."

"If the powers and duties reposed in the incumbent of a l!

- position are such that he exercises the function of the
sovereignty, the incumbent is an 'Officer' regardless of the
name by which he may be designated."

If these tests are applied, the appellant who held an office and was
clothed with functions of sovereignty was an officer. F

In ,Articles 146 and 229 of the Constitution officers and servants of
the Supreme Court andthe High Court have respectively been ~ro
vided for. In service jurisprudence even ministerial employees have
been referred to as officers. The terms 'officer' and 'employee' put
together obviously signify the grade of the establishment or 'post he[d, . G
the officer being higher in grade to employee. Keeping the nature and
duty assigned to the Inspector or the Sub' Inspector working in the
Department to whom powers have been delegated, it cannot be
doubted that the holders of posts of Insp.ector and Sub-Inspector are
officers. We, therefore, accept the contention of Mr. Rao that the
_'lppellant held the post of an officer and since the State had conceded H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.
~.
that it was an executive office and the appellant was holding the said
A post from April, 1973 till September, 1978, by 1980 when selection was
to be made he, had the requisite qualification.

Mr. Rao relied upon decisions of this Court in G.A. Monterio v.
The State of Ajmer, (1956] SCR 682 and Bajrang Lal & Anr. v. State of
B Rajasthan, [1976] 3 SCR 497 in support of his plea that the appellant 'y
was an officer. Both these cases were with reference to the definition
of 'public servant' in s. 21 of the Indian Penal Code. On principle, 't
these decisions support the conclusion which we have reached.
~

Counsel appearing for the respondents did not attempt to contend
that if the appellant had the requisite qualification when selection was
c being made and he had been kept out on the wrong premises that he
did not have the qualification, he would be entitled to challenge the
selection. The selected candidates were, however, not impleaded as
•
respondents in the writ petition and attempt to implead them at this
stage is bound to prejudice them. They have now been in service for
0 more than eight years and respondent no. 4 has even been holding a
promotional post for some time. We do not think in such a situation
there would be any justification to allow challenge to the recruitment
of the respondents. At the same time the State had no justification to
keep out the appellant from consideration. Tne appellant was entitled
to be considered for recruitment in 1980 and since his claim had been -+
E overlooked without justification, the State and the Haryana Public
Service Commission are bound to consider his case now on the basis
that he was entitled to recruitment in 1980.

Reliance was placed by Mr. Rao on some decisions of the this
-
Court, as to. the nature of relief that can be granted in a case of this
f type. We do not think in the facts of this case, the ratio of the decisions
can be applied as a guideline.

It has been brought to our notice that an enquiry was undertaken ...._, fi

by Government against some of the selected candidates on the allega-
tion that forged/false certificates had been produced by them in sup-
G port of qualification/eligibility and in the enquiry a prime facie case
had been made out. We express no opinion about it as it shall be for ...
the State Government to deal with the question and the appellant's
appeal has nothing to do with it.

The appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge as
H also the appellate order are vacated and the State Government and the
MOHINDER SINGH v. STAIB OF HARYANA (MISRA, J.] 443

k Public Service Commission are directed to consider the appellant's A
claim for recruitment on the basis of the notification for recruitment.
In case the appellant is found qualified, he shall be selected for the
post and duly appointed. The question of appellant's seniority is left
open to be dealt with by the State Government in consultation with the
Public Service Commission. The appellant shall have the cost of the
B
appeal. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs.3,000 to be recovered from the
Respondent-State only.

R.S.S. Appeal allowed.

-

a
•
-~

·-
J
rt
_..

• .,...
'