L.P.A. No.18 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** L.P.A. No.18 of 2008 alongwith L.P.A. No.23 of 2008 and L.P.A. No.129 of 2008 Date of decision : 12.5.2010 Dr.Satbir Kaur -----Appellant Vs. Dr.Shobha Rani Dhiman and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for the appellant in LPA No.18 of 2008 Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate, for the appellant in LPA No.23 of 2008 Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate, for the appellant in LPA No.129 of 2008 and for respondent No.2 in LPA No.18 & 23 of 2008 --- ORDER: 1. This order will dispose of L.P.A.No.18 of 2008 filed by Dr. Satbir Kaur, L.P.A. No.23 of 2008 filed by Dr. Promila Malhotra and L.P.A. No.129 of 2008 filed by the Punjabi University, Patiala, as all the appeals arise out of common judgment of learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant Dr. Satbir Kaur was initially appointed as Lecturer in the year 1989 and Dr. Promila Malhotra in the year 1986. L.P.A. No.18 of 2008 -2- The University regularised their services on 21.5.1993 and 26.9.1990 respectively. Thereafter, they were given promotion as Reader in the year 1998 and as Professor in July 2006. They have, thus, rendered more than 20 years of service and are due to retire after eight years and three years respectively. 3. The respondent-Dr.Shobha Rani Dhiman filed a writ petition in 1990 seeking regularisation of her services. She also challenged regularisation of services of Dr. Satbir Kaur and Dr. Promila Malhotra. 4. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 13.12.2007 held that no case for grant of benefit of regularisation in favour of writ petitioner was made out as she had been appointed against leave vacancy. It has been brought to our notice that in spite of declining of her regularisation, she was also granted promotion to the post of Research Scientist, which post was equivalent to Professor and thus, declining of regularisation to her, did not cause any prejudice. She has also not filed appeal against order of learned Single Judge. 5. While declining regularisation to the writ petitioner, learned Single Judge set aside the regularisation granted to the appellants Dr. Satbir Kaur and Dr. Promila Malhotra, who have preferred appeals. University has also preferred appeal supporting them. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Only question for consideration is whether finding setting aside regularisation of services of Dr. Satbir Kaur and Dr. Promila Malhotra calls for interference in facts and circumstances of the case. L.P.A. No.18 of 2008 -3- 7. Learned counsel for the appellants point out that irrespective of merits, in view of the fact that they have been in service for the last more than 20 years and have been given promotion and are due to retire, setting aside of their regularisation was not called for at this stage. 8. No doubt, regularisation cannot be source of recruitment as contended by learned counsel for the writ petitioner and appointment to every public post has to be after due advertisement and selection, developments noted above cannot be altogether ignored. 9. In view of developments noticed above, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, regularisation of the appellants is not liable to be disturbed at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and quashing of regularisation of appellants in LPA No.18 and 23 of 2008 is set aside. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE May 12, 2010 (ALOK SINGH ) akm JUDGE