C.W.P. No. 6520 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6520 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 18, 2011 Sarup Singh son of Sh. Inder Singh .... PETITIONER Vs. The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) This writ petition has been preferred by a person who was initially appointed as an Assistant Security Officer on daily wage basis by respondent No. 2 on 08.09.1995. He continued to work as such when vide resolution No. 1 dated 02.02.1999, the services of the petitioner were regularized in the pay scale of ` 1200-30-1500-35-1850 with the basic pay at the minimum of the said scale of ` 1200/- per month plus usual allowances as per Wage Board for sugar industry. The order dated 11.02.1999 was conveyed to him and in compliance thereto, he submitted his joining report. C.W.P. No. 6520 of 2011 2 One Baldev Singh, who was working as a Security Watchman and was a regular employee since the year 1994 and holding an additional charge of Security Inspector from whom the said charge was withdrawn on 06.03.1999, made a representation to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab-respondent No. 1 making a grouse with regard to the regularization of the services of the petitioner. The representation was disposed of by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.01.2000 by observing that Baldev Singh should avail of the remedy of appeal before the competent authority under the Service Rules. The Managing Director of respondent No. 2-Co-Operative Sugar Mills vide his order dated 24.03.2000 reverted the petitioner to his original position. This order was passed in pursuance of the appeal preferred by Baldev Singh against the order dated 06.03.1999. The petitioner when came to know about the passing of the order dated 24.03.2000, he filed a petition before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies impugning the said order wherein simple notice was issued to the respondent but no stay was granted. In such a situation, the petitioner preferred CWP No. 3553 of 2000 wherein the order passed by the Chairman of the Sugar Mill was also challenged on the ground that he did not have any jurisdiction to pass such an order and also on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The petition was admitted by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2000 and the operation of the impugned order dated 24.03.2000 was stayed. The writ petition ultimately was heard and decided on 18.05.2009 wherein the petitioner was not represented. However, the said writ petition was disposed of in the light of the pleadings in para-12 of the writ petition wherein the petitioner had stated that he had availed of the remedy of C.W.P. No. 6520 of 2011 3 appeal and further that the petitioner had the option of going before the Administrative Committee of the respondent-Mill, as has been observed by the Managing Director in the impugned order. Although the petition was dismissed yet the petitioner was given liberty to pursue his remedies as available to him/availed by him, in accordance with law. Accepting this order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Administrative Committee on 01.09.2009 and again filed a modified appeal on 09.10.2009. The petitioner was summoned by the Administrative Committee and he was given personal hearing. He further submitted his written statement before the Committee. The said submissions made by the petitioner, both oral and written, were taken into consideration by the Administrative Committee and vide its resolution dated 22.05.2010, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that earlier a decision was taken on 24.07.1997 to fill up the post of Security Officer through direct recruitment. The appointment of the petitioner as Security Inspector (daily wage) in September, 1995 was not in accordance with the statutory Rules governing the service which mandated direct recruitment. Accordingly as clause 3.2 of Punjab State Co-operative Sugar Mills Service Rules was not complied with, the decision regularizing the services of the petitioner was not in consonance with the statutory Rules and his appeal could not be accepted. It is this order, which is impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner were regularized vide resolution dated 02.02.1999 (Annexure P- 4/A) by the Administrative Committee. He contends that once a decision has been taken by the Administrative Committee to fill up the post by way of regularization of services of the petitioner by invoking Rule 3.9 of the C.W.P. No. 6520 of 2011 4 Service Rules, the subsequent decision of the Administrative Committee dated 22.05.2010, vide which his appeal was rejected, cannot be sustained as the Administrative Committee has proceeded to decide the claim of the petitioner under Rule 3.2 of the Service Rules. The decision of the Administrative Committee, thus, is based on the wrong assumptions and by applying wrong statutory Rules and the said decision deserves to be set aside. He further presses the ground that the order dated 24.03.2000 passed by the Chairman of Co-operative Sugar Mill-respondent No. 2 was without jurisdiction vide which he had been reverted to the original post as daily wage Security Inspector. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. As per the Service Rules, the mode of appointment is provided under Rule 3.9 which reads as follows:- “3.9 Where any vacancy occurs or is about to occur, the Administrative Committee shall determine whether such vacancy shall be filled by promotion, or by transfer on deputation or otherwise, or by direct appointment.” The Rule thus provides for filling up a vacancy by promotion or transfer or deputation or otherwise or by direct appointment. The agenda, vide which the case of the petitioner for appointment was considered which forms a part of the proceedings dated 02.02.1999 of the Administrative Committee, relates to filling up the posts lying in the Mill by way of promotion/fresh appointment. Therefore, the filling up of the vacant posts was to be done through these two modes only. C.W.P. No. 6520 of 2011 5 A perusal of the resolution does not indicate that the decision had earlier been taken by the Administrative Committee to fill up the posts by any other mode. Thus, the decision for regularizing the services of the petitioner was beyond the agenda and hence could not be said to be as per the requirement of the Rules. That apart, a perusal of the impugned resolution dated 22.05.2010 (Annexure P-11) would reveal that earlier the Supervisory Committee, who was exercising the powers of the Board, in its meeting held on 24.07.1997 vide Resolution No. 3 decided that the post of Security Inspector be filled according to the Service Rules adopting the proper procedure i.e. this post be filled up by publishing notice in the newspapers. This requirement of publication in newspapers is a part of Rule 3.2 of the Service Rules, which reads as follows:- “3.2 All categories of posts to be filled by direct appointment shall be notified to the local Employment Exchange, and for categories other than “Unskilled Operators” in the scale of ` 800-1050 (III Wage Board), advertisement shall also be made in one or more newspapers having a circulation of 50,000/- or above. However, the Administrative Committee may specify, for any post or category of posts, that recruitment shall be restricted to persons domiciled the reserved area.” This decision, it may be noted here, was after the initial appointment of the petitioner on 08.09.1995 on daily wage basis. After this decision dated 24.07.1997, there is no decision of the Administrative Committee nor has it been pleaded that there was any other decision subsequently providing for filling up that post by any other mode except C.W.P. No. 6520 of 2011 6 one which was decided on 24.07.1997 i.e. direct appointment. If that be so, the mode adopted vide Resolution dated 02.02.1999 passed by the Administrative Committee for regularizing the services of the petitioner is not sustainable. That apart, the post on which the petitioner was appointed as a Security Inspector on daily wage basis was a post, for which a decision had already been taken to fill up through direct recruitment. The appointment of the petitioner as a Security Inspector on 08.09.1995 was not in consonance with the statutory Rules governing the service and, therefore, does not confer any right on the petitioner on that basis. In the light of the above, the plea as raised by the petitioner with regard to the applicability of wrong statutory Rules in deciding the appeal of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The second submission, which has been pressed into service by the counsel for the petitioner, is with regard to the jurisdiction and competence of the Chairman of the respondent-Mill to pass order dated 24.03.2000 reverting the petitioner to his original post on daily wage basis. That aspect was under challenge in the writ petition preferred by him before this Court in CWP No. 3553 of 2000. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2009 wherein the liberty was given to the petitioner to avail of his remedy as has been observed above. The petitioner, if was aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, should have either preferred a review application as he was not represented, or filed an appeal challenging the said order. He, not having done so and preferred to file an appeal before the Administrative Committee which has not decided that aspect but has proceeded to decide the claim of the petitioner on its own merits as per the submissions made by the petitioner before the Administrative Committee, this ground of challenge to the order of the Managing Director would not be of any C.W.P. No. 6520 of 2011 7 consequence in the light of the present impugned order passed by the Administrative Committee, whose jurisdiction to pass the said order is not under challenge. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) April 18, 2011 JUDGE pj