CWP No.21700 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 22.2.2010 Sunita and others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Yesh Pal Malik, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) In the year 1997, the respondent-department issued a public notice/advertisement for filling up available vacancies of Sanskrit teachers. The advertisement/public notice was published in Jan Satta newspaper in its issue dated 19.8.1997. The petitioner claiming to be eligible in terms of the aforesaid notification, applied for consideration. On the basis of interview conducted by the Selection Committee constituted by the department, the petitioners were appointed as Sanskrit teachers vide letters dated 6, 23 October and November 10, 1997. The appointment of the petitioners was contractual in nature for a period of 89 days and terminable at any time during the tenure or after the expiry of the period of engagement, as is CWP No.21700 of 2008 2 evident from the appointment letter (Annexure P-1). It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid stipulation in the appointment letters, their services were extended and thereafter they were relieved in the months of May and September, 1998. Some aggrieved persons filed writ petitions before this Court. A bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.3037 of 2001 came to be disposed by this Court asking the respondents to take decision on the representation filed by the petitioners by passing a speaking order. Thereafter the respondents, on consideration of the claims of the petitioners, directed their reinstatement vide order dated June 28 & 29, 2004 and May 2 & 3, 2005. Since the benefit of the earlier service was not granted to petitioners, petitioners no.1 to 3 filed CWP No.19249 of 2004 for quashing the condition in the reinstatement order and seeking continuity of service. Some of the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 25.4.2005 on the basis of the reply filed by the respondents including the order dated 11.4.2005, as is evident from the order passed by the respondent dated 11.4.2005 (Annexure P-6). The petitioners were granted the benefit of continuity of their services, but without any back-wages. The petitioners are thus continuing to serve the respondents on the strength of the aforesaid reinstatement order. The petitioners have thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking following relief:- “i)issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in view of the Govt. Notification dated 1.10.2003- Annexure P-11 (reproduced in para 7 of the writ petition); holding the Govt. Notification dated 13.4.2007 (Annexure P-18) prospective in CWP No.21700 of 2008 3 nature; as the claim of the petitioner is covered by various judgments of this Hon'ble Court including Annexure P-20 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court- cited as (2008) 1 SCC 736 as well as the numerous office orders- including orders dated 9.3.2004, 16.8.2004, 23.8.2004 & 9.10.2004 (Annexure P-13 to P-16 respectively), passed by the authority of respondent Department- regularizing the services of the similarly situated Sanskrit teachers. ii)any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed.....” In fact the petitioners are seeking regularization of their services. Reliance is placed upon the judgment referred to in the prayer part and also government policy dated 1.10.2003 (Annexure P-11) and certain orders of regularization passed by the Government in this regard. The respondents have relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Secretary, Sate of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4, SCC, 01 and Indian Drugs of Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2007) 1 SCC 408. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The issue regarding regularization is regulated by Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) wherein following directions have been issued:- CWP No.21700 of 2008 4 “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filed up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify CWP No.21700 of 2008 5 that regularisation, if any, already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by- passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” The petitioners who are claiming the regularization of their services are to be considered, in the light of the aforesaid direction, having completed more than 10 years of service. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). Let the process of consideration be completed within a period of three months from today and consequential order be passed accordingly. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.2.2010 MFK