Regular Second Appeal No.1644 of 1988 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 29, 2010 Satya Devi ...Appellant VERSUS Circle Social Education Officer, Patiala & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms.Ambika Luthra, AAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Appellant Satya Devi had filed this suit to challenge the order dated 22.5.1984 through which she was relieved from service on the ground that the same was illegal, void and against the Civil Service Rules and also against the principle of natural justice. She Regular Second Appeal No.1644 of 1988 : 2 : would also plead discrimination and accordingly would pray that she should be considered to be in regular service, entitled to full wages and benefits from the date she was dismissed. The appellant was appointed as a Social Education Worker at Sekha Khurd in Panj Grain District Circle, Tehsil and District Faridkot in the pay scale of Rs.782-40P for a period of nine months. On 22.5.1984, she was relieved from service. On 11.6.1984, some juniors, namely, Gurdev Kaur, Kaushalya Rani and Manohar Devi, who were employed with her and relieved, were re-employed. The appellant would claim that they were junior to her, but were re- employed ignoring the claim of the appellant for re-employment. The entire case set up by the appellant was based on the principle of “last come, first go”, which, according to her was not applied. She had accordingly filed this suit. In response to notice, respondents had appeared and taken a ground that it was not a case of termination of service and the persons, who were employed, were relieved and some of them were re-employed. Accordingly, it is pleaded that no case for following the principle of “last come first go”, would be applicable in this case. On the basis of pleadings, the parties went to suit on the following issues:- “1. Whether order dated 22-5-1984 passed by defendant No.3 is illegal, void and against civil service rules? OPP 2. Whether notice U/S 80 CPC was not valid? OPD 3. Whether the Punjab State has not been properly Regular Second Appeal No.1644 of 1988 : 3 : sued? If so, its effect? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Relief. Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. Appeal was also dismissed and so she has filed this Regular Second Appeal. Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the appointment letter Exh.P1. While giving appointment for 89 days to the appellant, it was specifically provided in the appointment letter issued by Deputy Secretary, Education that:- “If any teacher is to be discharged, it would be the Junior most irrespective of the fact whether he was appointed against a leave vacancy or regular vacancy. In other words, the principle of “First come, Last go” should be carefully observed.” The entire case, as already noticed by the first Appellate Court, is based on this principle, which was required to be followed in terms of the appointment letter issued to the appellant. The first Appellate Court, in my view, has rightly appreciated that this principle would not be applicable in view of the admitted factual position in this case. All the four teachers, who were employed with appellant and statedly junior to the appellant, were relieved. Thereafter some of them were re-employed. In this background, the principle of “First Regular Second Appeal No.1644 of 1988 : 4 : come, Last go” would not be strictly apply in this case. The appellant was offered temporary appointment. It was not a case of termination. Services, as per the terms of the appointment, were not extended. The condition imposed in Ex.P1 was also relating to discharge. It is not shown that the order of discharge was passed against the appellant to attract the principle of “first come, last go”. The question of law as formulated by the appellant, thus, has been rightly considered and decided. No case for interference in the present Regular Second Appeal is made out and the same is accordingly dismissed. April 29, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE