Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 March, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No.18724 of 2012 [1]
CWP No.4336 of 2013
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CWP No.18724 of 2012
Date of decision:11.03.2013
Satbir Singh and another ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
(2) CWP No.4336 of 2013
Date of decision:11.03.2013
Pardeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.18724 of 2012.
Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP No.4336 of 2013.
Mr. B.S.Rana, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
By way of this order, we shall dispose of two writ petitions being CWP Nos.18724 of 2012 and CWP No.4336 of 2013 as in both the cases, condition No.(iii) prescribed in column 3 at Serial No.11 of Appendix-B under Rule 7 of the Haryana Veterinary Headquarter and Field (Group D) Service Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1999"), has been challenged. The facts, however, are extracted from CWP No.18724 of 2012.
As per the petitioners, the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed in Group-D posts in the Animal Husbandry Department, Haryana were governed by the Rules of 1999. CWP No.18724 of 2012 [2] CWP No.4336 of 2013
***** According to these Rules, there were 5 categories of posts in Headquarter staff, namely, Daftri, Jamadar, Peon, Chowkidar, Sweeper, whereas in the Field staff, it dealt with 63 categories of posts in which Sr. No.11 is with regard to Bull Attendant. The requisite qualifications for the Bull Attendant were as under:-
"i) Should be able to read and write Hindi;
ii) Rural Background;
iii) One year experience of handling of Animals; or 21
days training in Livestock rearing/Dairying." The Rules of 1999 were amended vide notification dated 24.10.2008 and the word "Bull Attendant" was substituted with "Animal Attendant". The qualifications prescribed for the Animal Attendant under the Haryana Veterinary Headquater and Field (Group D) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amended Rules of 2008") are as under:-
S.No. Designation Academic qualifications Academic qualifications of posts & experience, if any for and experience, if any, for direct recruitment appointment otherwise than by direct recruitment 11 Animal i) Matric pass with Hindi i) Matric pass with Hindi or Attendant or Sanskrit as one of the Sanskrit as one of the subjects from a subjects from a recognized recognized Board; Board;
ii) Rural background ii) Rural background
iii) Training in Dairying or iii) Training in Dairying or Poultry or Piggery Poultry or Piggery imparted imparted by Animal by Animal Husbandry and Husbandry and Dairying Dairying Department or any Department or any other other Government Government Organization Organization Desirable: Desirable:
Preference will be given Preference will be given to to those who have those who have experience experience of handling of handling animals in any animals in any State/Central Government State/Central Government Deptt. or Government Deptt. Or Government Organization.
Organization.CWP No.18724 of 2012 [3]
CWP No.4336 of 2013 ***** As per the petitioners, 1034 posts of Animal Attendant (Pashu Parichar) were advertised on 02.09.2011 by the respondents in terms of the Amended Rules of 2008. The petitioners also applied for the said post and attached the certificates issued by the registered Gaushala with regard to their experience, however, their applications were not considered because they had not obtained requisite training from the Animal Husbandry Department. The petitioner, thus, filed CWP No.13960 of 2012 which was lateron withdrawn in order to challenge the Amended Rules of 2008.
The grievance of the petitioners is that though they fulfill condition Nos.(i) and (ii) of Rule 7 as per the Amended Rules of 2008 but their candidature has been rejected only because of the condition No.(iii) which specifically provides that "Training in Dairying or poultry or piggery imparted by Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department or any other Government Organization". Their submission is that the Amended Rule is arbitrary and unacceptable because it does not lay down the period of training which is required to be considered and certificate issued by the registered Gaushala cannot be ignored as persons like the petitioners have got sufficient experience to handle the animals while working in the Gaushalas.
In reply, it has been averred that the post of Animal Attendant (Pashu Parichar) in the department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying Department, Haryana are meant for the establishments of Government Veterinary Hospitals, Government Veterinary Dispensaries, Government Livestock Farm, Semen Bank and other Veterinary Institutions in the State. CWP No.18724 of 2012 [4] CWP No.4336 of 2013
***** These Group-D employees are required to handle the animals and birds for vaccination, breeding, culling and other veterinary services which involve technical skills and requires necessary training. Further, as per the Government instructions for restructuring of the Department, it was necessary to synchronize the name of numerous Group-D field posts i.e. Livestock Mate, Milker, Bull Attendant, Calf Boy, Horseman, Junior Milk Recorder, Cattle Catcher, Dresser etc. into one i.e. Animal Attendant. It is further averred that the Gaushalas are non-government organizations and they lack the qualified staff and necessary infrastructure for imparting the aforesaid training. Insofar as the period of training is concerned, it was admitted that in the Amended Rules of 2008, there was no specific period of time as provided because such training were already going on in various Government Organizations including State Departments, Agricultural and Veterinary Science Universities, Krishi Vigyan Kendras, Central Government Organizations like National Dairy Research Institute (NDRI), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Central Poultry Development Organization (CPDO) etc. The duration of training was already fixed by the concerned organizations as per requirement of the stream. The department has tried to give maximum opportunities to the trained unemployed youths by not fixing the duration of training.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
The impugned Rule is in accordance with the demand of the nature of job because the Animal Attendant had to perform the job of handling the animals and birds for vaccination, breeding, culling and other CWP No.18724 of 2012 [5] CWP No.4336 of 2013 ***** veterinary services which requires technical skills which is acquired through proper training, imparted only by the Government Institutions which have been mentioned here-in-above and cannot be equated with the work of handling of animals in the Gaushalas, which is not considered as technical training to equate with the training as required for the post.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are quite satisfied that the amended Rules of 2008 does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable rather the same has been framed according to the necessity of the work to be discharged by the person holding the post of Animal Attendant. Hence, both the writ petitions are found to be without any merit and the same are hereby dismissed.
(A.K.Sikri) (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
Chief Justice Judge
March 11, 2013
vinod*