L.P.A. No.1768 of 2011 (O&M) ( 1 ) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 28.09.2011 The Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited. ... Appellant Vs. Krishna Devi ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.SS Dalal, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. PERMOD KOHLI, J. C.M. Nos.4758 and 4757 of 2011 are allowed. Delay in filing as also in refiling the appeal, is condoned. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 31.03.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent was appointed as a Clerk on the basis of a selection made by the appellant after inviting applications through a public L.P.A. No.1768 of 2011 (O&M) ( 2 ) advertisement dated 11.04.1986. As many as 95 vacancies were advertised including for the reserved categories. The respondent applied for the post and came to be selected and appointed vide order dated 04.06.1986. The appointment of the respondent was treated as ad hoc and her seniority was fixed with other ad hoc employees including those who were recruited in subsequent recruitments. Services of the respondent were, however, regularised by a decision of the Board of the Bank taken in the meeting held on 06.03.1990. Aggrieved of the action of the present appellant, respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No.8575 of 1990 before this Court claiming that she was regularly appointed on 04.06.1986 and, thus, entitled to benefit of service right from the initial appointment for all purposes The appellant, however, resisted the claim of the respondent alleging that though she was initially appointed pursuant to the advertisement, but her services were terminated and a fresh recruitment was made in the year 1990 when she was again appointed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that no material has been placed on record to substantiate the plea that service of the respondent was terminated at any stage, although, the respondent was appointed on regular basis vide order dated 06.03.1990. On a pointed question being asked to Mr. Dalal as to whether the appointment of the respondent made in the year 1990 was pursuant to any separate process of selection. Mr. Dalal has very fairly conceded that regular appointment of the respondent was made in the year 1990 on the basis of her selection made in the year 1986. L.P.A. No.1768 of 2011 (O&M) ( 3 ) It may also be useful to note that the appointment order dated 04.06.1986 whereby the respondent was appointed contained the following conditions:- “1. Your appointment is temporary and is liable to be terminated at any time after giving one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. If you want to leave the service, you will have to give one month's notice failing which the salary for the period for which notice falls short of, shall have to be deposited by you in this Bank. 2. You will be on probation for two years. The probation period can be further extended by six months.” From the perusal of the above conditions, it is clear that the selection of the respondent was by adopting a due process by inviting applications and holding the selection in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent was placed on probation for two years. Her services were never dispensed with either during probation or thereafter, at any stage. She continued to serve un-interruptedly as no material to the contrary has been produced either before the Writ Court or before us. Under these circumstances, mere passing another order of regularisation also does not, in any manner, deprive the respondent of the benefit of her appointment made in the year 1986. The conditions that she was placed on probation for a period of two years, is in itself an indicator that her appointment was intended to be a regular appointments. L.P.A. No.1768 of 2011 (O&M) ( 4 ) Mr. Dalal has not been able to show any order that the advertisement issued in the year 1986 was for ad hoc appointment. In view of the above circumstances, the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge deserve no interference. We find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) 28.09.2011 JUDGE BLS Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO