IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4076 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.10.2009 Hukam Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SABINA,J.(Oral) Plaintiff-Hukam Singh filed a suit for declaration which was dismissed by the Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.)Mohindergarh vide judgment and decree dated 14.02.2005. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 12.08.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under: "Briefly stated facts of the present plaintiff's case as alleged are that plaintiff was employed as a part time 4th class employee in Govt. Primary School Dhani Jadwa and his work and conduct was satisfactory. Plaintiff has passed 4th Class and was born on 10.6.1968. According to the instructions of Director Secondary Education Haryana, Chandigarh dated 13.6.2000, plaintiff is entitled for regularization of his service as 4th class employee. But RSA No.4076 of 2008 ..2.. on 14.6.2000, plaintiff was relieved from the service due to summer vacations and was not allowed to join his duties and he was finally relieved on 11.7.2000. Order dated 14.6.2000 passed by Block Education Officer, Satnali is illegal, null & void and against instructions of Director Secondary Edcuation Haryana. Services of the plaintiff have been wrongly terminated despite the fact that plaintiff fulfills all the conditions for regularization of his service. Defendants were asked many times to regularize his service but they remained adamant in refusal. Hence, the present suit was filed. 3. The present suit was contested by defendants on the grounds that plaintiff is not entitled for regularization of his services nor he is entitled to get any allowances. Plaintiff has been relieved as per instructions of the department rightly and following the rules without any discrimination. Order of relieving of the plaintiff from his service has been rightly passed and since plaintiff is not entitled for regularization of his services. He was part time Sweeper despite the fact that no such post is in existence. However, defendants will regularize all the part time employees on the basis of school qualifications and roster as per instructions of despartment. Since, plaintiff does not fulfill the required conditions; hence, he has been rightly relieved from the services and prayed for dismissal of the present case. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to regularize as Class-IV employee as alleged?OPP RSA No.4076 of 2008 ..3.. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to the service benefits as alleged?OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit?OPD. 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 6. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD 7. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 8. Whether the defendants are entitled to special cost U/s 35A CPC?OPD 9. Relief." After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff was working as a part time Sweeper since 02.11.1985 upto 14.6.2000. Plaintiff however failed to establish that there was a sanctioned post in the school with regard to which he was claiming regularization of his services nor he could establish that he was duly qualified for the post. Plaintiff had failed to prove on record that he had passed Class-4 examination to fulfill the criteria regarding qualification. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. October 30, 2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge