Civil Writ Petition No. 3233 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3233 of 1994 Date of decision:-08.09.2011 Neelam Sharma ...Petitioner Versus The Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Education, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G. Punjab. Mr. S.K. Kamboj, Advocate for respondent No.4. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate her from 21.1.1988 as Lecturer in Geology. Reinstatement and consequential benefits of regularization be given to him from the date of services of his juniors have been regularized. On 12.10.1981 petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Government College, Sunam, where she served uptil 31.3.1982. Thereafter, she was appointed as Lecturer in Government College of Science, Education & Research, Jagraon, District Ludhiana from 19.10.1982 to 15.1.1983. Thereafter, she was appointed as Lecturer in Government College, Gurdaspur w.e.f. 18.11.1983 till 04.2.1987. She was transferred to Nawab Jassa Singh Ahluwalia Government College, Kapurthala. The services of the petitioner were terminated on Civil Writ Petition No. 3233 of 1994 -2- 28.1.1988. The petitioner filed writ petition No.856 of 1987 in the Supreme Court alongwith co-petitioners. The Supreme Court of India granted status quo order with respect to the conditions of service during the pendency of writ petition in Supreme Court (Annexure P-1). Despite this order her services were terminated on 28.1.1988. A Division Bench of this Court has passed an order on 13.1.1988 (Annexure P-2) to the effect that if regularly selected candidates are available, then they shall be accommodated by terminating the services of junior most adhoc lecturers. The petitioner has filed writ petition No.8304 of 1988 challenging her illegal termination. This writ petition was disposed of in terms of CWP No.72 of 1988 decided on 26.09.1988. The Supreme Court vide (Annexure P-3) had given direction that adhoc teachers were to be terminated on availability of regular selected candidates on the basis of 'First Come Last Go'. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are juniors to the petitioner have been retained and petitioner's services have been terminated on 28.1.1988. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G. Punjab on the basis of written statement filed argued that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Geology and has served in three different colleges since 1981 to 1987. As per the directions given by the Supreme Court (Annexure P-3) on the availability of regularly selected candidates, the services of adhoc teachers terminated on the basis of 'First Come Last Go'. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are Lecturers in Zoology and are juniors to the petitioner. They were appointed on adhoc basis. They filed writ petition No.1065-1110 of 1984 in the Supreme Court with a prayer that their services may be regularized. The Supreme Court had granted status quo on 07.3.1984. As such they were not relieved by Civil Writ Petition No. 3233 of 1994 -3- the Department. Smt. Niwanjit Gill, Lecturer in Zoology was appointed in Government College, Hoshiarpur against the post of Smt. Davinder Kaur, Adhoc Lecturer-respondent No.3 but Smt. Niwanjit Gill did not join her duties. Smt. Davinder Kaur continued working. Had Smt. Niwanjeet Gill joined her duties, the adhoc Lecturer Davinder Kaur would have been relieved much earlier. In the case of petitioner Ms. Manwal Sanjeev Inder Dev Kaur was recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission and she joined against the post held by the petitioner. In this background the petitioner had to be relieved to accommodate the regularly selected candidate. A perusal of the order dated 25.10.1991 (Annexure R-I) shows that 210 adhoc Lecturers had approached the Supreme Court that they were selected during the period 1979-1986 and were seeking the benefit of regularization on the ground that they had become over- aged. The Supreme Court had declined to issue any direction for regularization of their services. However, they were given a chance for regular selection by appearing before the Punjab Public Service Commission. The selection was to be exclusively confined to those in service and they were not to compete with fresh candidates. Since the petitioner had been terminated on 28.1.1988, she was not in service and therefore, she could not be part of the selection process, conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission, her representation has been rightly rejected by passing the order dated 18.3.1993 (Annexure P-6). Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in CWP No.1959 of 1994 titled 'Smt. Suksham Bala versus State of Punjab and others' decided on 05.3.2009. The facts of this case are not applicable to the Civil Writ Petition No. 3233 of 1994 -4- present case as in this case one adhoc Lecturer had been duly selected by appearing before the Punjab Public Service Commission. After appearing in the interview on 30.3.1994 she was not allowed to join as she has not withdrawn the writ petition pending in this Court. Even though she had reached the age of 50 years. The writ petition was allowed and a direction was given to the respondents to permit her to join the services. In the facts of the present case the petitioner's services were terminated on 28.01.1998 as Ms. Manwal Sanjeev Inder Dev Kaur recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission had joined against the post held by the petitioner. This was in conformity with the Supreme Court directions (Annexure P-3) whereon availability of regular selected candidates, the adhoc teachers could be terminated. The petitioner was teaching geology and she could be replaced by a regular candidate, lecturer in geology, which has been done. In compliance of Supreme Court directions in Annexure R-1 all the adhoc teachers were to be given one opportunity to participate in regular selection, which was confined to those in service. The petitioner after being terminated did not participate in the selection process, therefore, she could not be regularly selected. Her representation for regularization has rightly been rejected vide order dated 18.03.1993 (Annexure P-6). The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. September 08, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE