# RAM SARUP v. STATE OF BARY ANA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1984] 3 S.C.R. 734
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984
- **Case number:** Civil Writ Petition No. 752 of 1977
- **Bench:** Y.V. CHANDRACHUD c;.J, D.P. Madon, RANGA NATH f MISRA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-sarup-v-state-of-bary-ana-ors-8639
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Panchayat Samitls, and Zilla Paris'1ads Act, 1961 a.r amended by Harayna
Ame1Jdment .Act of 1973 de!etiilg Section 33, Effect of-Whether af)y tzppointlizenf
made after the deletion of Section 33 valid effective.
rf
Section 33 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961
provided that subject to rules made by the Govetnment, a Panchayat Sariliti
may employ such ·servants as it n1ay consider necessary for the efficienrPerfor-
·mancc of the dufies imposed upon it by the Act,. i;ules or bye-laws.made there-
·unde( o~ by any other· law for the time beilig in force. The Punjab· Panchayat
Samitis and Zilla Parishads (Haryana Amendment Act, j973 which came into
force from June, 13, 1973', introduced extenSive ar!lendments. Section 33 of the
Act was deleted by Section 13 of the Amending Act, Sub section (4) of Section
14 the·Amending Act, provided that perso~s.empJoyed by a Panchayat Samiti
before April 4, 1973 and who .were in service .at the commecement of the
Amending Act, "shall colninue to serve on the. same terms and conditions on
which they "'ere employed by the· J>anchayat Samiti" until th.ey are absorbed in
the G.overnment Service· or retire in s~ch mannei as m.cy be prescribed. Section
. 35(1) of the Act empowers the State-Government to place at the disposa 1 of a
. Panchayat Samiti such of its servants as lrc required for the implementation of
the schemes annexed therewith and for such other duties and .fUnCtions as may
be assigned to then1 by the Panchayat Samitis from time to timee.
The appellant ·was appointed as a clerk on Julle I, 1963 by the Panchayat ·
Sarniti, Loharu; H·e .was confirmed. in that post in course of rime. On January
21,.1974, he was promoted as ·a Head Clerk lQn an adhoc basis. On March, 14
-1975 a resolution was passed by the Samitl regularising the post of Head Clerk.
On April 1, 1975, the appellant'·was · a·ppoioted
~:s a Head Cl.erk. Acting in
pursuance of the provision of Section 14(4) of the the Amending Act, the
Government of Haryana notified the absorption o_f the appellant-as 3. clerk.
though hC was worki'ng as a:Head Clerk' since January 21, 1974." B:ing aggriev~
ed the appellant filed a Writ Petition and prayed for il ·direction to absofb him
as a"Head Clerk .. The Writ Petition having been. dismis~ed by the High Court,
the appellanths filed this appeal by special leave;
Dismissing. the· appeal, the _Court,
HELD: LJ. The Panchayat Samiti had no right to appoint the appellant
to the post of H~ad Clerk on the date on Which it ·purported tQ dO so. As a
result of the <leletion of Section 33 of the Act by the Amending Act of 1973, the
\ .
•
••
RAM Si\RUP v. HARYANA (Chandrachud, C.J.)
735
Panchayat Samiti lost its. power to make appointment to the Parichayat. It
could not ther.efore have appointed the appellant as a Head Clefk, as it purported to d(}-so, in January,· 1974 on an adhoc basis or in April 1965 On a ,regular
basis. [737D]
, J .2. Though- the right to be considered. for promotion is a term and condi-
- tion of service, in the instant case, the_ appointment .of the appellant to the post
of·a Head CJerk being without the authority of law, the Government was nOt
bound to absorb him in. the post of a Head Clerk; He was appointed 1awfu1Jy
to the post of a clerk and that fs the p~st in which the Government' has absorbed him; [737C ; El
A
B

## Text

A
0
D
E
F
G
H
•
734
,RAM SARUP
v.
-STATE OF BARY ANA & ORS.
May3, 1984
..
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD c;.J, D.P. MADON, AND RANGA NATH
f
MISRA, JJ.J
Panchayat Samitls, and Zilla Paris'1ads Act, 1961 a.r amended by Harayna
Ame1Jdment .Act of 1973 de!etiilg Section 33, Effect of-Whether af)y tzppointlizenf
made after the deletion of Section 33 valid effective.
rf
Section 33 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961
provided that subject to rules made by the Govetnment, a Panchayat Sariliti
may employ such ·servants as it n1ay consider necessary for the efficienrPerfor-
·mancc of the dufies imposed upon it by the Act,. i;ules or bye-laws.made there-
·unde( o~ by any other· law for the time beilig in force. The Punjab· Panchayat
Samitis and Zilla Parishads (Haryana Amendment Act, j973 which came into
force from June, 13, 1973', introduced extenSive ar!lendments. Section 33 of the
Act was deleted by Section 13 of the Amending Act, Sub section (4) of Section
14 the·Amending Act, provided that perso~s.empJoyed by a Panchayat Samiti
before April 4, 1973 and who .were in service .at the commecement of the
Amending Act, "shall colninue to serve on the. same terms and conditions on
which they "'ere employed by the· J>anchayat Samiti" until th.ey are absorbed in
the G.overnment Service· or retire in s~ch mannei as m.cy be prescribed. Section
. 35(1) of the Act empowers the State-Government to place at the disposa 1 of a
. Panchayat Samiti such of its servants as lrc required for the implementation of
the schemes annexed therewith and for such other duties and .fUnCtions as may
be assigned to then1 by the Panchayat Samitis from time to timee.
The appellant ·was appointed as a clerk on Julle I, 1963 by the Panchayat ·
Sarniti, Loharu; H·e .was confirmed. in that post in course of rime. On January
21,.1974, he was promoted as ·a Head Clerk lQn an adhoc basis. On March, 14
-1975 a resolution was passed by the Samitl regularising the post of Head Clerk.
On April 1, 1975, the appellant'·was · a·ppoioted
~:s a Head Cl.erk. Acting in
pursuance of the provision of Section 14(4) of the the Amending Act, the
Government of Haryana notified the absorption o_f the appellant-as 3. clerk.
though hC was worki'ng as a:Head Clerk' since January 21, 1974." B:ing aggriev~
ed the appellant filed a Writ Petition and prayed for il ·direction to absofb him
as a"Head Clerk .. The Writ Petition having been. dismis~ed by the High Court,
the appellanths filed this appeal by special leave;
Dismissing. the· appeal, the _Court,
HELD: LJ. The Panchayat Samiti had no right to appoint the appellant
to the post of H~ad Clerk on the date on Which it ·purported tQ dO so. As a
result of the <leletion of Section 33 of the Act by the Amending Act of 1973, the
\ .
•
••
RAM Si\RUP v. HARYANA (Chandrachud, C.J.)
735
Panchayat Samiti lost its. power to make appointment to the Parichayat. It
could not ther.efore have appointed the appellant as a Head Clefk, as it purported to d(}-so, in January,· 1974 on an adhoc basis or in April 1965 On a ,regular
basis. [737D]
, J .2. Though- the right to be considered. for promotion is a term and condi-
- tion of service, in the instant case, the_ appointment .of the appellant to the post
of·a Head CJerk being without the authority of law, the Government was nOt
bound to absorb him in. the post of a Head Clerk; He was appointed 1awfu1Jy
to the post of a clerk and that fs the p~st in which the Government' has absorbed him; [737C ; El
A
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1433 of
. c
1977
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order. dat~d
the !6th.February, 1977. of the Punj1b and Haryana High Court in
Civil Writ Petition No. 752 of 1977.
J.D. Jain & Mrs. Kawa/jit Kocher for the Appellant.
Harban.; Lai, l.S. Goel & R.N. Poddar for the Respondent.
•
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACl!UD, CJ. Section 33 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis
and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 ("The Act")" provided in so far as
relevant, that subject to rules made by the Government, a Pai:J.chayat
Samiti may employ such servants as it may consider ne.cessary for·
the efficient performance of the duties imposed upon it by the Act,
rules or bye-laws made thereunder or by any other law for the time·
being in force.
In p,ursuance of this power, the appellant was
appointed as a clerk on June 1, 1963 by the Panchayat Samiti,
Loharu, which is respondent 3 in this appeal.
He was confirmed in
that po.st in course of time. On J'anuary 21, 1974 he was promo.ted
as a Head Clerk on an ad lz~c basis. On March 14, 1975 a resolution was passed by .respondent 3 regularising the post of Head Clerk .
. On April 1; 1975, the appellant was appointed as a Head Clerk.
The Punjab Panchayat SamitisJ Zilla · Parishads (Haryana
Amendment) Act, 1973 introduced extensive.amendments in the Act
of 1961. Section 13 of the Amending Act deleted section 33 of the
Act. , A plain consequence of this deletion was that the Panchayat
Samitis were divested of their power to make allPointments to· the
Panchayats. The Amending Act re1ieived the assent of the Governor
D
·E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
•
E
F
G·
H
736
'.'lll'RJMB COURT REPORTS
l\9S4J 3 S.C.ll
on April 25, 1973 and was published in the Haryana ·Gazette on
June 13, 1973:
Sections 35(1) of the Act empowers tbe State Gov~rnment to
place at the disposal of a Panchayat Samiti such of its servants as
are required for the implementation of the schemes connected
therewith and for such other duties and fuμctions as may be assigned
to them by the Panchayat Samiti from time to time. · Section 35(3)
which dealt with the conditions . of. service of the Government
servants allotted to the Panchayai Sam.tis, was amended by section ·
· 14 of the Amending AC! of 1973. Sub-section (4) of section 14 of
the Amending Act provides that persons employed by a Panchayat
Samiti before April 1, 1973 and who were in s.ervice at the commencement of the Amending Act, "shall continue to service on the same
terms and conditions on which they were employed by the Panchayat
Saroiti", until they are absorbed·in the Government service or retire
in such manner as may be pres?ribed.
• 'Acting in pursuance of the provision of section 14(4) of the
Amending Act, the Government of Haryana notified the absorption
of the a~pellant as a clerk though, as stated earlier. he . wa.s working
as a Head Clerk in the Loharu Panchayat Samiti. Being aggrieved
by his absorption on a lower post, he filed a writ petition in the
High Cpu~t of Punjab and Haryana, asking that he .should be
absorbed as a Head Clerk. The writ p~tition having been dismissed
by th~ High Court, the appellant has filed. this appeal' by special
leave.
...
The appellant was appointed as a clerk by the Loharu
Panchayat Samiti in 1963, long before the .. Amending Act came into
for<;e on June 13, 1973.
He was, therefore, entitled to be absorbed
in Government service as a clerk in any event. But, as a result of
the deletion of section 33 of the Act by the Amending Act of 1973,
the · Panchayat· Samiti lost its power to make appointments to the
Panchayat. ·The· fact· that th,e appellant was ·promoted as a Head
Clerk of\ an ad hoc ·basis in January 1974, or the further fact.that
he was appointed as a Head Clerk on April l; 1975, cannot improve
his position for the simple reason that these appointments we.~e
made after June 13, 1973, being the date on which the Panchayat
Samiti lost its power to make appointments to the Panchayat.
'
' .
,
• • .,
•
;..
.
. !-
')
. ,./
RAM SARUP v. HARYANA (Chandrachud, CJ.)
131
It is urged by Shri Jain who appears on behalf of the appellant
that by reason of section 14(4) of the Amending Act, the appellant
was entitled to continue in the service of the Panchayat on the same
· terms and conditions on which he was employed by the Panchayat
Samiti until he was absorbed in Government service. Since the
appellant, according to the terms and conditions of his service with
the Panchayat, was entitled to be considered for promotion to the·
post of a Head Clerk, his appointment ~s a Head Clerk prior to his
absorption in Government service had to be recognised and protec-
·ted, despite the fact that such appointment was made after June 13,
1973 when the Amending Act came into force. There is no substance in this contenion. Even assuming for the purposes of argument
that the right to be considered for promotion is a term and condition
of service, what is relevant for . our purpose is not whether the
appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion but, whe~f(el'
the Panchayat. Samiti had the right to appoint him t6 ·the post of
Head Clerk on the date on which it purported to do so. Clearly, it
· had forfeited that right on June 13, 1973.
It could not, therefore,
have appointed the appellant as a Head Clerk, as it pnrported te>
do, in January 1974 on an ad hoc basis or in April 1675 on a regular
basis. .The. appointment of the appellant to the post of a Head
Clerk being without the authority of law, the Government was not
bound to absorb. him in the post of a Head Clerk. He was appointed
lawfully to the post of a Clerk and that is the post in which the
Government has absorbed him.
'
For these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There
will be "no order as to costs.
S.R
Appeal dismisseJ.
'
•
A
B
C.
D
E
F