CWP No.18204 of 1991 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : May 12, 2009 1. CWP No.18204 of 1991 Ram Singh Yadav vs The State of Haryana and others, 2. CWP No.18203 of 1991 R.C.Mittal vs The State of Haryana and others, 3. CWP No.16001 of 1993 R.C.Mittal vs The State of Haryana and others. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. C.M.Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner (s). Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the official respondents. Mr.H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CWP Nos.18203 and 18204 of 1991. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.18203, 18204 of 1991 and 16001 of 1993, as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No.18204 of 1991. The petitioner passed M.A in Economics with 52% marks. He further got the Degree of M.Ed and also Ph.d in Education. He was initially CWP No.18204 of 1991 ::2:: appointed in an aided education college w.e.f 1.12.1975. His appointment was approved by the Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra on 31.3.1976. On 30.8.1979, the petitioner was appointed in yet another College. This appointment was approved by the M.D University vide letter dated 1.1.1980. On 22.10.1983, the petitioner was appointed by way of adjustment in the Chaubisi Degree College, Meham under the direction of the Director Higher Education Haryana. This appointment/adjustment was also approved by the M.D University by letter dated 5.3.1984. On 1.9.1987, the said College was taken over by the government w.e.f 10.10.1987 and by letter dated 29.3.1988 the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.2 w.e.f 20.10.1987. However, by order dated 3.12.1991, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that as per the new UGC Regulations, minimum qualification for the post of Lecturer was Master Degree with 55% marks and the petitioner did not have that percentage. In the written statement, this plea has been reiterated. Counsel for the petitioner has raised two arguments. His first argument is that as per letter dated 31.7.1978 (Annexure P12), the government had decided as follows :- “...... Keeping the circumstances in consideration as referred by the Directorate, the Lecturers who were working in affiliated Colleges before 27.1.76 and approved by Kurukshetra University, the new prescribed qualification should not be applicable in their cases when they have to start the services in some other college afresh and because there was no hindrance if they would have continued their services in their old institution.” CWP No.18204 of 1991 ::3:: It is his contention that the petitioner had been working in an affiliated College before 27.1.1976 and, thus, was entitled for this relaxation. The second argument of counsel for the petitioner is that in any case on the date of the termination of his services, he had sufficient experience and, in view of the fact that he subsequently obtained Ph.D Degree also, whatever short fall that the petitioner may had in his marks may be deemed to have been ignored. In a similar matter bearing CWP No. 13941 of 2008 titled as Kanwal Singh V. State of Haryana and others, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- “.............. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in Bhagwati Prasad and others Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development 1990 1 S.C.C 361 while adverting to the value of experience, that education would not always give experience and if the experience has been obtained during the service, that itself would be sufficient ground for retention of service and not to terminate on the ground of lack of the requisite educational qualification. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC 1536 1979 1 SCC 168 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court was addressing the issue of the appointment of Statistical Officer who did not fulfill the requisite qualification at the time of appointment but who had obtained necessary experience subsequently during the service and that was good enough justification CWP No.18204 of 1991 ::4:: for retention of service without termination. We find ourselves bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and we are in full agreement with raison- d'tre (sic) found in the above judgment. We quash the show cause notices in the above circumstances and uphold the contentions of the petitioners. Consequently, the respondents shall not give effect to any proposal for termination of the services of the petitioners. ” It is also not disputed that this Court stayed the operation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner and that consequently, the petitioner has continued in service. Thus, as on date, the petitioner has put in almost 22 years government service. In my opinion, on both the grounds taken by counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition deserves to succeed. It cannot be disputed that the letter (Annexure P-12) was intended particularly to give benefit to such College Lecturers who had been appointed as per the extant requirements prior to 27.1.1976. The mere fact that the petitioner was adjusted in the Chaubisi Degree College, Meham after 27.1.1976 would not render him ineligible to get the benefit of the letter (Annexure P-12). The petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the order dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P-16), whereby he has been confirmed w.e.f 29.9.1994. Even this action of the respondents in confirming the services of the petitioner would, in my opinion, strengthen the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 3.12.1991 (Annexure P-11), terminating the services of the petitioner is set aside. CWP No.18204 of 1991 ::5:: It is not disputed that during this entire period, the petitioner has worked. However, he has not been considered for the grant of various benefits like senior scales etc. In view of the fact that I have held the petitioner to the benefit of the letter (Annexure P-12), the respondents would release all consequential benefits to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 12, 2009. JUDGE `kk'