HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16077 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.08.2011 **** Sakinder Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. MS Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a Class-IV employee of the respondent- Department whose services were admittedly being used as a Driver. The petitioner has been denied absorption/regularization as Driver on the solitary plea of impermissibility under the Rules. (2). Similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7323 of 1999 (Hardarshan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.) decided on 06.08.2002, the operative part whereof reads as under:- “It is true that two wrongs never make a right. An illegal action in one case shall not justify the repetition of another mistake. Resultantly, the Court will not compel the authority to repeat the wrong. CWP No.16077 of 2010.doc - 2 - However, in the present case, nothing has been pointed out with reference to any rule which may place a bar on promotion of a class IV employee to the class III service. Still further, there is not even a suggestion that the petitioner does not fulfill any qualifications which may have been prescribed for the post of Driver. In any event, the petitioner has worked as a driver for the last about 10 years. Nothing has been found against him. The State Government has repeatedly issued instructions for the regularization of services of the employees who have worked on a post for a sufficiently long time. In the present case, the petitioner is a regular member of the class IV service. He has worked for almost 10years on a class III post. Even under the instructions, issued by the State Government, he is entitled to be considered for regularization. Taking all these facts cumulatively, it appears to be just and fair to direct that the respondent shall consider the petitioner’s for regularization on the post of Driver. The needful shall be done within 2 months from the date of a receipt of a certified copy of this order. The consequential reliefs shall follows.” CWP No.16077 of 2010.doc - 3 - (3). The SLP filed against the above-stated judgement was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (4). The present writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of Hardarshan Singh’s case (supra) with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner keeping in view the directions issued in the above-cited decision, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 26.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge