IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12539 of 1991 Date of Decision : December 16, 2010. Ravinder Kumar ..... Petitioner. Versus. The Haryana State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, Panchkula and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr. C.B. Goel and Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Sodhi, Advocate, for the respondents No. 1 and 2. M. JEYAPAUL, J. (ORAL). The petitioner joined the Thermal Plant of the Haryana State Electricity Board at Faridabad as Supervisor on work charge basis with effect from 04.09.1973. The respondent/Board had framed a policy to regularise the services of the work charge Thermal Supervisor. Aggrieved by the act of the respondent/Board in regularising the services of the juniors, ignoring the seniority of the petitioner and others, the petitioner and others filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1991. The petitioner and others had sought relief of regularisation of their services from the date when the services of the juniors were regularised in the aforementioned writ petition. 2. The petitioner was assured that his services would be regularised, provided the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ petition pending before this Court. Accepting the offer made by the respondents, the petitioner filed an application in the aforesaid writ petition, praying to strike off his name from the array of parties. Accordingly, his name was struck off from the array CWP No. 12539 of 1991 -2- of parties in the Civil Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1980. 3. The petitioner appeared before the Screening Committee thrice and thereafter the petitioner was offered a regular post of Junior Engineer, vide office memo No. CH.III/HO/1670/Vol.II, dated 31.05.1989. The petitioner joined the regular post of Junior Engineer, accepting the offer of appointment given by the respondents. 4. After about two years time, a Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.1991 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause as to why the appointment letter issued to the petitioner on 31.05.1989 may not be withdrawn/cancelled, as the Competent Authority, namely, the Additional Secretary, HSEB, Panchkula, rejected the appointment given to the petitioner on the basis that the regularisation of services of the petitioner was not in accordance with the instructions of the Board. The petitioner submitted his explanation and prayed the respondents to withdraw the Show Cause Notice issued upon him. Not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the respondents withdrew the offer of appointment given to the petitioner on 31.05.1989. The said impugned order is under challenge before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the services of the petitioner was regularised and an order of appointment was issued to the petitioner as Junior Engineer only after the writ petition filed by the petitioner was withdrawn. The petitioner also subjected himself to the Screening Committee and the order of appointment was issued only after the Screening Committee gave clearance. It is his further submission that there is no clause in the order of appointment that the order of appointment was issued subject to approval or concurrence of the Competent Authority. Nothing has been stated in the Show Cause Notice as to the irregular appointment made by CWP No. 12539 of 1991 -3- the respondents. Therefore, it is his submission that the respondents have committed illegality in withdrawing the order of appointment issued to the petitioner regularising his service after a lapse of two years without any rhyme or reason. 6. The learned Advocate Shri Ravi Sodhi appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that the order of appointment was issued subject to the condition that the appointment could be terminable by giving one month's notice. There was no vacancy of Junior Engineer at the time when the services of the petitioner was regularised. The petitioner was also not senior to the persons already regularised. For all these reasons, he would submit that the Competent Authority has right to reject the order of appointment issued by the Board. 7. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner aggrieved by the regularisation of the juniors approached this Court with a writ petition in CWP No. 3086 of 1980 alongwith similarly placed persons praying for his regularisation. It is also an admitted position that an offer was made to the petitioner to regularise his service, provided he withdrew the writ petition. Having taken into consideration the assurance given by the respondents, the petitioner did withdraw the writ petition in CWP No. 3086 of 1980. It has been admitted in the reply submitted by the respondents that the petitioner did appear before the Screening Committee and the order of appointment was made only after the Screening Committee gave clearance. 8. The petitioner has received a jolt after about two years time from the respondents in the form of Show Cause Notice. A show cause notice with the proposal to withdraw the very appointment should reflect various grounds on which such a withdrawal has been proposed. Very strangely, the respondents had issued the Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.1991 just referring CWP No. 12539 of 1991 -4- to the alleged rejection of the order of appointment issued to the petitioner by the Additional Secretary, HSEB Panchkula, on the ground that the regularisation of his services was not in accordance with the instructions of the Board. The aforesaid Authority has been termed as the Competent Authority in the Show Cause Notice. Quite unfortunately the order of appointment does not whisper about the requirement of concurrence or approval by the Competent Authority. Under which provision of law, the Additional Secretary, HSEB Panchkula, has figured as Competent Authority is not known to the Court. No rule has been cited by the respondents to show that the Additional Secretary, HSEB Panchkula, is a Competent Authority to oversee the appointments issued by the respondent/Board. Admittedly, the respondent/Board is the Competent Authority to issue the order of appointment. Even otherwise what sort of irregular appointment was made by the respondents has not been adverted to in the Show Cause Notice. A bald Show Cause Notice was served on the petitioner to give an explanation as to why the order of appointment issued to him shall not be withdrawn. Very obediently, it appears, the petitioner submitted his explanation traversing the facts and circumstances under which he was regularly appointed. With a cryptic order, the respondents showed the doors to the petitioner by saying that his explanation was not satisfactory. 9. The very order of appointment was issued to the petitioner only after an offer was made to regularise his appointment on withdrawal of the writ petition filed by him. The order of appointment was issued only after the petitioner was thoroughly screened by the Screening Committee. With a bald Show Cause Notice, the respondents cannot take away the order of appointment issued based on the report of the Screening Committee. The impugned order also does not advert to the various reasons under which the CWP No. 12539 of 1991 -5- petitioner is deprived of the order of appointment. It is found that the respondents have acted in a very capricious manner in withdrawing the order of appointment issued to the petitioner after the petitioner had put in two years of regular service as Junior Engineer. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same stands quashed. The services of the petitioner be regularised from the date when the services of his juniors have been regularised. 10. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. There is no order as to costs. (M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE December 16, 2010. sjks.