IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8821 of 1987 Date of Decision: October 22, 2009 Surinder Singh & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Even on the last date of hearing, none had appeared for the petitioner. The petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents i.e. State of Punjab, Secretary Education, Punjab and Director of Public Instructions (C), Punjab, to regularise the services of the petitioners. It has been pleaded that the CWP No.8821 of 1987 [2] petitioners are Diploma holders in coaching from various universities and are eligible for appointment as Coaches in Government Colleges of the State in terms of qualification laid down for the post. The names of the petitioners were registered with Employment Exchange. A requisition was sent by the Principals of various colleges to the Employment Exchange for forwarding the names of eligible candidates. Names of the petitioners were forwarded. Resultantly, the petitioners were appointed as Coaches. Letter of appointment is Annexure P-1. Petitioner No.1 joined as Coach on 10.1.1987 whereas petitioner No.2 joined on the said post on 12.1.1987. On completion of about one year of service, the petition has been filed. In the petition, a reference has been made to the instructions issued by the State of Punjab from time to time to plead that the services of the petitioners need to be regularised. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the written statement to contend that services of the petitioners cannot be regularised in so much as appointment on regular basis can be made only through selection process by Departmental Selection Committee. The CWP No.8821 of 1987 [3] petitioners were appointed on purely temporary basis for 89 days or till appointment of persons by regular mode in accordance with statutory rules. It has been pleaded in Para 3 of the Preliminary Objections that the petitioners alongwith others had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on same facts and therefore, the present petition could not have been filed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has disposed of the writ petition by way of order placed on record as Annexure R-II. Learned counsel has also referred to recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the issue viz. State of Karnataka & Others vs. G.V. Chandrashekar, (2009) 4 SCC 342. I have considered the issue. A perusal of appointment letter, Annexure P-1, indicates that on reference of the names of the petitioners by the Employment Exchange, the petitioners were appointed for 90 days or till regular employees are appointed. It is further mentioned that the petitioners would be relieved from duty without notice at any time. So far as the Order (Annexure R-II) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on adjudication of the rights of the petitioners, is concerned, it CWP No.8821 of 1987 [4] has been held in the following terms:- “Following the order dated September 2, 1983 of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.3268-3323/83 we dispose of the Writ Petition in the following terms:- On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the just and fair order should be that the petitioner who has been appointed on adhoc basis should be continued until the Government make regular appoints on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. Meanwhile the petitioner will get her salary for the period of the vacation. Learned counsel for the Parties agree that the Writ petition should be disposed of in the above terms. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.” In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the petition filed by the petitioners also, no ground for interference in this petition is made out. Replication has not been filed to show that the petitioners had been substituted by other persons, on adhoc basis. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of in view of order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, placed on record as Annexure R-II and in view of what has been held in State of Karnataka & Others vs. G.V. Chandrashekar, (2009) 4 SCC 342. (AJAI LAMBA) October 22, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?