IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.677 of 1996(O&M) Date of decision: 8.1.2010 Panjab University, Chandigarh & another. -----Appellants Vs. Devindra Kshyap. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for respondent. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing regularization of services of the respondent from the date he was appointed and in case he had been relieved from his duties, to take him back in service. 2. The respondent was appointed as part time/adhoc Lecturer in the Department of Evening Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh in August, 1986 where he worked upto 1989 when he was appointed as Lecturer on adhoc basis, in which capacity he worked from 1989 till one month prior to passing of the impugned order i.e. 17.4.1996. Case of the respondent was that since he LPA No.677 of 1996 was duly selected by the Departmental Selection Committee, he was entitled to regularization of service in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Private College Stop-gap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 1992(2) SCC 29, Rabinarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa & ors. 1991(2) SCC 599 and Lecturers Forum v. State of Rajasthan 1993(4) SIR 262. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of later judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 1], direction for regularization could not be issued when appointment was on adhoc basis unless regular appointment was made after following due procedure. 5. Only contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent to support the impugned judgment is that there was a recommendation of the Syndicate dated 26.5.1993, Annexure P- 5, to regularize services of adhoc teachers who had worked for three academic sessions or more. 6. In reply to this contention, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said decision was later superceded vide decision dated 21.12.1993. He submits that in any case, after judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi 2 LPA No.677 of 1996 (supra), the legal position has undergone change and direction for regularization could not be given. 7. After considering the rival submissions, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order passed by learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 08, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3