In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1461 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:4.11.2011 Gurnam Singh .....Appellant v. The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide which appeal of the appellant-plaintiff-Gurnam Singh against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been dismissed. Necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit against the Punjab State (respondents herein) for declaration that the order dated 1.3.1983 of Director of Public Instructions (S) (respondent R.S.A. No.1461 of 1988 [2] No.2 herein) vide which the appointment of the plaintiff as Lecturer on regular basis has been withdrawn was illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, void, arbitrary and liable to be set aside and not binding on the plaintiff on the ground that his services were regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1977 as he was actually posted as Lecturer on ad hoc basis and he was relieved on 31.1.1978 and he joined as a regular Master. As per Government instructions dated 3.5.1977, his case for regularization as Lecturer should have been considered within three months and he was eligible to be appointed Lecturer on regular basis, respondent No.2 is stopped from withdrawing his appointment. On these grounds the plaintiff challenged the order and filed suit for declaration before the trial Court. The suit was contested by the defendants-respondents on the ground that the case of the plaintiff for regularization as Lecturer on his having completed one year service on 31.3.1977 was under consideration, when he accepted the offer of the post of Social Studies Master on his regular selection as such, against which he joined on 9.2.1978. He left the post of ad hoc Lecturer on 31.1.1978 on his own and remained out of service from 1.2.1978 to 8.2.1978. The order for regularization as Lecturer w.e.f. 1.4.1977 was issued on 19.2.1980 when he had been holding regular post of Social Studies Master. Therefore, his lien could not be retained on the post of Lecturer held by him previously on ad hoc basis. Show cause notice was issued to him asking him as to why the order of regularization of his services as Lecturer should not be withdrawn. In fact, the order of regularization was never implemented because the plaintiff had left the post of Lecturer and no reply to the show cause notice was received within the R.S.A. No.1461 of 1988 [3] prescribed time. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff after appreciating the evidence and material produced on record. It was held that the plaintiff cannot claim the lien on the post of Lecturer because that post was purely on ad hoc basis and when the order for regularization was issued, the plaintiff had left the post of Lecturer and had joined the post of Social Studies Master on regular basis and he remained out of service from 1.2.1978 to 8.2.1978. Aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the plaintiff has come up before this Court through regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the trial Court record with the assistance of counsels. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has contended that if the Government instructions dated 3.5.1977 for regularization of the services of ad hoc employees, who had completed one year service on 1.4.1977, were implemented within three months, the appellant could not have left the ad hoc post of Lecturer and joined as the lower post of Social Studies Master on regular basis. Hence, the impugned order was wholly misconceived inasmuch as the appellant was entitled to regularization as Lecturer on the basis of the Government instructions w.e.f. 1.4.1977 and his joining the lower post of Master in the absence of an order of regularization cannot operate as an estoppel. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that as the appellant has voluntarily left the ad hoc post of Lecturer on 31.1.1978 and joined the lower post of Master on regular basis on 9.2.1978, the order dated 1.3.1983 vide which his appointment as regular Lecturer was withdrawn has rightly been passed R.S.A. No.1461 of 1988 [4] after giving him opportunity and the order under appeal is valid and legal. There is no dispute to the point that the appellant was appointed as ad hoc Lecturer in Punjabi on 3.9.1974 in Government High School, Mehtabgarh and has left the ad hoc post of Lecturer voluntarily on 31.1.1978 and he joined the lower post of Master on 9.2.1978. It is pertinent to note that the instructions on the basis of which the appellant was regularized as Lecturer vide order dated 19.2.1980 were issued on 3.5.1977 according to which the case of the ad hoc employees for regularization was to be considered within three months, but these were implemented on 19.2.1980 as during this period the case was under consideration of the Government. However, these instructions are directory in nature and are not mandatory. When order dated 19.2.1980 regularizing the services of the appellant as Lecturer was passed, admittedly he was not working as ad hoc Lecturer as on that date he was working on the regular post of Master w.e.f. 9.2.1978. As he left the post of Lecturer on his own on 31.1.1978 and joined the lower post of Master on 9.2.1978 after a gap of eight days, a break in Government service occurred and his lien against the post of Lecturer was not retained. He was given opportunity before withdrawing the order dated 19.1.1980 vide show cause notice dated 21.5.1982 and advised to reply within fifteen days, however, he submitted his reply on 12.7.1982. Another notice dated 5.10.1982 was served on him, however, no reply to this show cause notice was received from the appellant within the prescribed time, therefore, the order of his regular appointment as a Lecturer was withdrawn. The appellant himself has admitted that he did not reply the notice in time. He also admitted that the entry (Ex.D.1) in his R.S.A. No.1461 of 1988 [5] service book (Ex.P.3) was signed by him in token of its correctness and that entry shows that the he did not work any where from 1.2.1978 to 8.2.1978. In this manner, a break of eight days has occurred in his service, and he has not taken any steps to get regularized this period. The application submitted by him for grant of leave was also rejected and he did not file any appeal against that order. Therefore, it is evident that the order of withdrawal has rightly been passed after affording him sufficient opportunity. I am of the considered view that once the appellant has left the ad hoc post of Lecturer on his own on 31.1.1978 to join the lower post of Master on regular basis w.e.f. 9.2.1978, it is evident that on that date no order for his regularization as Lecturer was passed or that there was any consideration as is claimed by him, otherwise he would not have left the ad hoc post of Lecturer. Otherwise also, he was not working on the post of Lecturer when the order for regularization was passed on 19.2.1980 which has rightly been withdrawn. Under these circumstances, the order of withdrawal of order for regularization was rightly held to be legal by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have dealt the factual and legal position governing the case of the plaintiff-appellant in great detail. In the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. November 4, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*