Supreme Court Clarifies Cut-Off Date for Haryana Civil Service Eligibility: State of Haryana vs. Dinesh Singh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: December 14, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1070
Judges: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar
Can a government employee be deemed ineligible for promotion if disciplinary action was contemplated against them after the initial eligibility date but before the final selection? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning appointments to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). The core issue revolved around determining the correct cut-off date for assessing eligibility, particularly concerning pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings against candidates. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of relevant service rules and sets a precedent for similar cases. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Aravind Kumar, with Justice M.M. Sundresh concurring.

Case Background

Dinesh Singh, the respondent, was initially appointed as a Naib Tehsildar in the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management on August 12, 2008, and later served as a Tehsildar. He sought appointment to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). The department deemed him ineligible for selection to Register A-1, a register of accepted candidates for the service, because they believed action was being contemplated against him as of the date of consideration, even though no disciplinary proceedings were pending. Dinesh Singh contended that he was not facing any disciplinary proceedings, nor was any action being contemplated against him, and challenged his exclusion in the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Dinesh Singh and other similarly situated persons. The Division Bench of the High Court, on appeal, set aside the order of the Single Judge and directed the State to consider Dinesh Singh for appointment from Register A-1. The State of Haryana then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008. Rule 7 of these Rules states that appointments to the Service shall be made from the registers of accepted candidates. Rule 8 specifies the maintenance of various registers, including Register A-I for District Revenue Officers/Tehsildars. Rule 9 outlines the selection process for Register A-1, requiring the Financial Commissioner to prepare a list of eligible officers and submit it to a Committee for consideration.

Rule 9(1)(a) of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, as amended, states that a candidate’s name shall be submitted if they:

• (i) has completed eight years of continuous Government service including service rendered as Naib-Tehsildar;
• (ii) has not attained the age of fifty years on the first day of November immediately preceding the date of submission of names by the concerned authority;
• (iii) is not facing disciplinary proceedings and against whom action is being contemplated;
• (b) is a graduate of a recognised University.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The cut-off date of 01.11.2018, as mentioned in the rules, applies only to the age-related eligibility criteria under Rule 9(a)(ii), and not to other conditions.
• The eligibility regarding disciplinary proceedings should be tested as of the ‘date of consideration,’ which is the date the Committee recommended names to the Commission (30.09.2018).
• Treating 01.11.2018 as a uniform cut-off date for all eligibility conditions would create an anomaly, as candidates against whom disciplinary action was contemplated after that date would still be considered eligible.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Rule 9 contemplates only one cut-off date for all eligibility conditions, which is 01.11.2018.
• Notification dated 30.05.2019 specified that the DRO’s/Tehsildars should fulfill the conditions as on 01.11.2018 which included the condition qua pendency/contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.
• The government’s clarification letter dated 09.07.2019, which states that 01.11.2018 is only for age eligibility, amounts to changing the rules of the game.
• Even if 31.08.2019 is considered the cut-off date, no disciplinary action was contemplated against the Respondent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether 01.11.2018 is the cut-off date uniformly applicable to all eligibility conditions under Rule 9(1)(a) and (b), or if it is only for age-related eligibility.
2. If 01.11.2018 is only for age, whether Dinesh Singh satisfied other eligibility conditions, particularly if any disciplinary action was pending or contemplated against him as of the date of consideration.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Rule 9 of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, and the meaning of the term “contemplated” in the context of disciplinary proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific language of the rules and the need to avoid creating anomalies. The court also took into consideration the clarification issued by the government on 09.07.2019.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, but rejected them because they were not in line with the literal interpretation of the rules and would lead to anomalous results. The final decision was based on the clear language of the rules, the government’s clarification, and the meaning of the term “contemplated” as interpreted in previous court decisions.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The cut-off date of 01.11.2018 was specifically mentioned in Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) only for the age-related eligibility criteria.
• The government’s clarification letter dated 09.07.2019 clearly stated that the cut-off date was only for age and that other conditions were to be tested as on the date of consideration.
• The word “contemplated” means that a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings has been taken.
• As per the facts, a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings was taken against Dinesh Singh prior to the date of consideration, making him ineligible.
• The Court emphasized that it was not deciding on the correctness of the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, but only on the interpretation of the rules.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The finding of the Division Bench to the contrary was on the premise that the subject rule in itself had provided for 01.11.2018 to operate as the cut-off date qua all conditions of eligibility found in Rule 9.”
• “From this clarificatory note, it becomes clear that if a candidate was less than 50 years of age as on 01.11.2018 and continued to be so till the date of recommendation, then his ACR and experience was to be counted till the date of recommendation.”
• “Therefore, it cannot be held that Rule 9 contemplated a uniform cut-off date qua all the conditions of eligibility. 01.11.2018 was relevant only in so far as Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) was considered.”

There were no minority opinions in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

The key practical implications of this judgment are:

• Cut-off dates for eligibility criteria in service rules must be interpreted literally, and any specific mention of a date applies only to the condition to which it is explicitly attached.
• For conditions like pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings, the relevant date is the date of consideration, not necessarily the initial cut-off date for other eligibility criteria.
• Government clarifications, if consistent with the rules, are valid and must be followed.
• The term “contemplated” in the context of disciplinary proceedings means that a decision to initiate disciplinary action has been taken.

The judgment clarifies the interpretation of service rules and provides a precedent for similar cases involving cut-off dates and disciplinary proceedings. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to the specific language of the rules and avoiding interpretations that could lead to anomalous results. This will likely impact future cases involving civil service appointments and promotions.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and affirmed the order of the Ld. Single Judge, subject to the observations made in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a specific cut-off date mentioned in a service rule applies only to the eligibility condition it is explicitly linked to. Other conditions, such as those relating to disciplinary proceedings, are to be assessed as of the date of consideration.

This judgment clarifies that:

• Cut-off dates in service rules should be interpreted literally.
• The term “contemplated” in the context of disciplinary proceedings means a decision to initiate a formal inquiry has been made.
• The date of consideration by the committee is the relevant date for assessing eligibility concerning disciplinary proceedings.

This judgment reinforces the principle that service rules must be interpreted strictly and that courts should avoid interpretations that create anomalies. It also provides clarity on the meaning of “contemplated” in the context of disciplinary proceedings, which is a common issue in service law cases.