RSA No.2960 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2960 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision: 30.3.2009 Santosh Sharma ......Appellant Versus Arya Girls Senior Secondary School and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Moudgil, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.8230-C of 2007 This is an application for condoning the delay of 55 days in filing this appeal. Notice of this application was given to the respondents. However, no reply has been filed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts mentioned in the application which were not rebutted, I find sufficient reasons to condone the delay. Thus, delay of 55 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2960 of 2007 This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below dismissing her suit for declaration to the effect that the relieving order dated 24.8.2000 was illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and for mandatory injunction as consequential relief directing the defendants to put her back on duty with all consequential RSA No.2960 of 2007(O&M) 2 benefits. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant before the trial Court was that she was appointed as Music Lecturer in Arya Girls, Sr. Secondary School, Shahabad Markanda on 22.7.1998 against a sanctioned post. It was stated that work and conduct of the plaintiff was quite satisfactory. The defendants threatened plaintiff to submit her resignation failing which she would be terminated but she refused. It was further stated that defendants wanted to accommodate their own candidate in place of the plaintiff for which they had no right. The plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendants not to remove her from the service but they were adamant and therefore, the plaintiff brought the suit. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants for 30.8.2000 pursuant to which they appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the plaintiff had already been relieved from service on 24.8.2000 and, therefore, the suit which was only for permanent injunction was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit challenging the termination order dated 24.8.2000. Necessary permission was granted to her on 31.8.2000 by the Court. Since the order dated 24.8.2000 was illegal and the plaintiff could not be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice and that she was teaching against a regular post having been appointed after adopting a proper procedure, the necessity arose to file the present suit. The defendants contested the suit taking various preliminary objections in their written statement. On merits, it was submitted that she was not entitled to any relief as she was appointed on 20.7.1998 as part- time teacher on daily wages against a non sanctioned post and further no grant whatsoever was provided by the Government. She was appointed without any interview as she was already working in the school and was RSA No.2960 of 2007(O&M) 3 relieved from service on 24.8.2000 as her services were no more required by the defendants and a letter along with a cheque of Rs.4,616/- i.e. one month's salary in advance and wages for the period w.e.f. 1.8.2000 to 24.8.2000 was sent to her. It was also stated that her work was not satisfactory. Thus, dismissal of the suit was sought. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective case. After considering the evidence on record and hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.2006. While dismissing her appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed as under: “At the outset, pertinent to mention that Smt. Santosh Sharma, appellant plaintiff, was never appointed against a permanent post and because of this she was not given any formal appointment letter. At no point of time, during her employment with respondents defendants she was ever allowed salary admissible to a regular teacher. Even it is her own admission when appeared as PW1 that she was getting consolidated salary of Rs.2,600/- per month. She added that while working in respondent-defendants' school she had also been working in Arya Public School. She was getting Rs.700- 800/- per month as salary from Arya Public School. She even testified that at the time of her employment as a Music Teacher in respondent-defendants' school she RSA No.2960 of 2007(O&M) 4 was working in Arya Public School. After her employment in the respondent-defendants' school, no amount towards E.P.F. & G.P.F was deducted from her salary. Meaning thereby, the appellant-plaintiff never worked against any permanent/sanctioned post of Music Teacher in respondent-defendants' school. This being so, she, as a matter of right, cannot claim her reinstatement as a Music Teacher in the school. For this, reliance may be placed on observations, held in Jasmer Singh and others v. Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another, 1999 (2) Labour & Services Judicial Reports 274 in which our Hon'ble High Court ruled that a person not appointed after following the prescribed procedure or against sanctioned post cannot claim protection against termination as such appointment was not in accordance with law. In Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal and another v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and others 1996(2) Apex Court Journal 587 (S.C.), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ad hoc appointments would be only temporary appointments de hors the rules, pending regular recruitment without conferring any right to regularization of service. While making such observations, reference was made to observations earlier held in J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan, 1994 (2) SCC 630. Similar observations were held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Ajay Kumar, 1997 (2) Apex Court Journal 498 (S.C.), RSA No.2960 of 2007(O&M) 5 Chandreshwar Naralan Dubey and others v. Union of India and others, 1998 (3) Recent Services Judgments 586 (S.C.) and Union of India and others v. Bishamber Dutt 1997 (1) Apex Court Journal 10 (S.C.). In Committee of management, Vasanta College for Women v. Tribhuwan Nath Tripathi and others, 1997 (1) Apex Court Journal 437 (S.C.), Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that ad hoc appointee has not subsisting right to continue in service after the expiry of the period of such appointment.” Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant was never appointed against a permanent post and because of this, she was not given any formal appointment letter. At no point of time, during her employment with the respondents, she was ever allowed the salary admissible to a regular teacher. The Lower Appellate Court while dismissing her appeal has also referred to her own admission while appearing as PW-1 wherein she stated that she was getting a consolidated salary of Rs.2,600/- per month. Thus, the appellant never worked against any permanent or sanctioned post of Music teacher in respondents-school. That being so, she, as a matter of right, cannot claim her reinstatement as a Music Teacher in the school. It is well settled that a person not appointed after following the prescribed procedure or against sanctioned post, cannot claim protection against termination as such appointment was not in accordance with law. RSA No.2960 of 2007(O&M) 6 For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. March 30, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE