LPA No. 252 of 1998 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 252 of 1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.02.2010 State of Punjab ....Appellant. Versus Amarjit Singh ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 89 days basis against a vacant post in 1990. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time. Last such extension in service was granted to the petitioner from May.1994 to July, 1994. 3. The State government vide Annexure P-25 issued instruction stipulating that the services of the adhoc/temporary Class III and IV employees who have rendered two years of service as on 27.3.1992, and were in service on the aforesaid date, are entitled to be regularized. By a subsequent instruction Annexure P-26, it was clarified that the adhoc/temporary Class III and IV employees who had completed 240 days LPA No. 252 of 1998 2 of service as on 31.12.1994 and were in service on that date, were also entitled to regularization provided that the break in service between one appointment and the next, did not exceed 30 days and that they fulfil various other conditions. 4. In view of Annexures P25 and P26, the petitioner submitted her claim for regularization, but her claim for regularization was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the writ petition. 5. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the petitioner on the ground that similarly situated persons as the petitioner were regularized on the basis of the instructions issued by the State government vide Annexures P-25 and P-26. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that order directing regularisation of the services of the writ petitioners is against the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 7. 7. It is an admitted fact that Jaspal Kaur was appointed as Clerk for 89 days against a vacant post on 23.1.1990. Her services were extended from time to time by respondent No.2 and last extension was granted to her on 20.5.1994 upto the end of July, 1994. 8. It could not be proved by the petitioner that she was appointed as per the Rules after proper advertisement for filling up the posts. In view of this, ratio of the judgement of the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) is fully applicable in the present case and regularisation can not be directed. 9. Judgement of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Uma LPA No. 252 of 1998 3 Devi's case (supra). 10. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 01.02.2010 sk.