IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5937 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 21.04.2009 Des Raj and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioners, who are working as Beldars and Safai Karamcharis in the office of Municipal Council, Rohtak, have filed this petition for quashing the order 27.3.2009, whereby they have been found to be not eligible as per the Haryana Municipal Departmental Account Examination Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1985 Rules'), to take part in the Departmental Accountant Examination. It is the case of the petitioners that since they have passed 10 + 2 examination and have more than five years experience on the posts of Beldar and Safai Karamchari regarding Accounts works of the Municipal Council, therefore, they are eligible to appear in the aforesaid Examination, CWP No. 5937 of 2009 -2- and the respondents have wrongly rejected their claim, while declaring them ineligible to appear in the said examination. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and going through the contents of the petition, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. Rule 2 of the 1985 Rules prescribes the qualification for becoming eligible to appear in the aforesaid departmental examination. The said Rule is being re- produced below : “2. Qualification – (1) The departmental examination shall be open to the employees of the State Government and of local authority who are Graduates from any University recognized by the State Government and have three years experience or Matriculates with five years experience, in dealing with the payment of vouchers, maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets and adjustment, etc. in a Government office or in the office of a local authority. A certificate shall be necessary from the concerned Deputy Commissioner or Head of Department that he has satisfied himself that the candidate possesses the above experience. (2) The decision of the State Government shall be final with regard to the qualifications. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule clearly reveals that an employee of the State Government or of local authority who is (i) Graduate from any University recognized by the State Government and has three years experience; or (ii) Matriculates with five years experience, in dealing with the payment of vouchers, maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets and adjustment, etc. in a Government office or in the CWP No. 5937 of 2009 -3- office of a local authority, is eligible to appear in the said examination. It is further prescribed that a Certificate issued by the concerned Deputy Commissioner or Head of Department satisfying himself that the candidate possesses the above experience is required and the decision of the State Government in that regard shall be final. In the present case, with the application forms, which were sent through proper channel, the petitioners annexed the certificates issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak, who is not the Head of the Department, to the effect that they have full experience regarding Accounts Works of Municipal Council for more than five years. But the said certificates were not accepted by the Government and it was found that as per the aforesaid Rule, the petitioners were not eligible to take part in the said examination. Concededly, the petitioners are working as Beldars and Safai Karamcharis. Their duties and responsibilities as Beldar and Safai Karamcharis have nothing to do with the the payment of vouchers, maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets and adjustment, etc., in the office of the local authority. With the petition, neither any material has been annexed nor any averment has been made that on the post of Beldar or Safai Karamchari, the petitioners are dealing with the payment of vouchers, maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets and adjustment, etc. The petitioners are Class IV employees and they have nothing to do with the aforesaid duties and they have no experience in dealing with the payment of vouchers, maintenance of cash books, provident fund accounts, budgets and CWP No. 5937 of 2009 -4- adjustment, etc. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners has referred to the letter dated 15.9.1992 (Annexure P-7), whereby one Bhudev Sharma, Safai Daroga, was permitted to appear in the Haryana Municipal Departmental Accountant Examination. In my opinion, this document will not help the petitioners, because the post of Safai Daroga is higher promotional post and the duties and responsibilities on the said post are different, whereas the petitioners are only Beldars and Safai Karamcharis and their next promotional post is Safai Daroga. Even for promotion to the post of Safai Daroga, there is no requirement of passing any departmental examination and no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioners. Thus, their case cannot be equated with the case of an employee holding the post of Safai Daroga. Therefore, in view of Rule 2 of the 1985 Rules, the petitioners are not eligible to appear in the Departmental Accountant Examination and their applications in this regard have been rightly rejected by respondent No.1. No merit. Dismissed. April 21, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE