'Disciplinary Proceedings Contemplated' : What Does 'Contemplate' Mean? Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court in its decision on Thursday (December 14), in an appeal against a High Court's Order allowing appointment to a government post, held that to ascertain the cut-off date for eligibility criteria, attention should be given to clarification letters issued subsequently. The Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar further analysed the position of law for construing the term “Contemplate” in light of eligibility rules that require the candidates to not have any disciplinary proceedings contemplated against them. In terms of the facts, Respondent no.1 was appointed as a Naib Tehsildar on 12.8.2008 and at the time of filing of the original writ petition was serving in the post of Tehsildar. His appointment to the post in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) as per the 2008 Rules was not considered on the grounds of ineligibility under Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) as amended in 2017. The selection process as elaborated under the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 requires the person's name to be found in “'one or other of the registers of Accepted Candidates to be maintained under these rules” under Rule 7. Of the various such registers, Rule 8 (a) provides for “Register A-I of District Revenue Officer/Tehsildars accepted as candidates”. It is within this register that the Respondent's selection consideration falls. Rule 9 deals with eligibility criteria for the selection of candidates whose names will be included in Register A-1. The rule for eligibility under rule 9(1)(a) requires that “ (i) has completed eight years continuous Government service including service rendered as NaibTehsildar; (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” A subsequent communication from the Chief Secretary's Office on 30.5.2019 mentioned, “2. The DROs/Tehsildars whose names are to be recommended should fulfill the following conditions of eligibility as on 01.11.2018:” followed by the abovementioned criteria. The Respondent, on being absent from acting as Duty Magistrate during the Haryana Teacher's Eligibility Test, 2018 was decided to be chargesheeted on 5.2.2019 and informed to undergo formal inquiry. The Respondent challenged the action of being declared ineligible before the single-judge bench in a writ petition, which was dismissed and his non-consideration was upheld. However, the division bench set aside the single-judge bench's order and directed the State to consider the case of Respondent No. 1 for appointment. The Appellants mainly contended that the correct cut-off date to consider eligibility would be the date on which the Committee recommended names to the Commission under Rule 9(2), i.e. 30.9.2018 as opposed to the claimed date of 1.11.2018. Reliance was placed on a subsequent clarification issued by the Government on 9.7.2019 which specified that the date 1.11.2018 was only for the purpose of age-related criteria and other conditions were to be seen as on “date of consideration”. The Respondent on the other hand stressed on the communication dated 30.5.2019 to contend that 1.11.2018 be taken as the uniform cut-off date and that the clarification on 9.7.2019 would amount to changing the rules of the game. It was further submitted that the appellant has not pleaded 31.8.2019 to be the date of consideration before the previous rounds of litigation. Additionally, even assuming 31.8.2019 to be the cut-off date, it cannot be said that any disciplinary action was “contemplated” against the Respondent. The Court was essentially tasked to examine two key questions, firstly, whether the cut-off date for all criteria be considered as 1.11.2018 or only for the purposes of determining the age criteria; secondly, if 1.11.2018 is considered as the cut-off date, whether it can be said that any disciplinary action was contemplated against him as on such date? The Cut-off Date is determined in view of the Clarification issued subsequently : Dissecting the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court, the bench observed while the former opined the cut-off date as 1.11.2018, Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) on criteria of disciplinary proceedings does not specify any such date. Agreeing with the Single Judge Bench's order, the Court ruled that the date of 1.11.2018 was to be construed to extend to apply only for age determination criteria and was of a limited purpose. The intention of the lawmakers could be gauged from the clarification letter issued on 9.7.2019. It was observed, “ The cut-off date (01.11.2018) was relevant only to decide the question of how much of the ACR and experience had to be considered and till what period. Such date was never meant to operate as the date against which all the eligibility criteria had to be measured against. This...

'Disciplinary Proceedings Contemplated' : What Does 'Contemplate' Mean? Supreme Court Explains

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags