IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 147 of 2008 Date of decision: 27th May, 2008 District Education Officer, Kurukshetra and another … Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Ambala & Ors. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been filed by District Education Officer, Kurukshetra and Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Amin, District Kurukshetra challenging the impugned award (Annexure P-1), whereby respondent No.2-workman has been ordered to be reinstated into service with all service benefits incidental thereto, including continuity of service and back wages along with a special cost of Rs.3000/-. Respondent-workman had served a demand notice (Annexure P-2), in which he had stated that he was appointed in October 2001 and continuously worked upto September 2004 and has served for 240 days in the 12 months preceding the date of his termination. In response to the demand notice, reply was filed vide Annexure P-3 by the Principal of the Civil Writ Petition No. 147 of 2008 School, in which it is stated that respondent-workman was temporarily engaged for sweeping of rooms in different interval days and he was paid through donation. In the writ petition filed reliance has been placed on State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 to contend that the backdoor entry in public employment is no longer permissible. Name of the petitioner was neither requisitioned through employment exchange nor in pursuance of an advertisement. No equal opportunity was given and fair competition among the qualified persons was held. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement. It has been further stated that petitioner being a temporary- casual employee has no right to reinstatement and he is not covered under the definition of workman. He could not be reinstated in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1. We find that the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 SCC 81 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his/her appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to termination and is covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited (2007) 1 SCC 533, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen (2007) 1 SCC 408, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another (2006) 6 SCC 221 and UP Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others (2007) 5 SCC 755, it has been held that reinstatement of 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 147 of 2008 a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations. Accordingly, we accept the present petition and quash the impugned award (Annexure P-1). [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE May 27, 2008 rps 3