CWP No. 1959 of 1994 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:05.03.2009 Smt.Suksham Bala ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner was engaged on the post of Lecturer in Philosophy on ad hoc basis in the year 1983. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.856 of 1987 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court for regularisation of her services. Though initially status-quo was ordered on 24.09.1987, but the order was modified on 16.12.1987 and the respondent-State was allowed to appoint regularly selected candidate on the first instance by terminating the services of ad hoc employees on the basis of first come last go. Respondent No.4 also filed Civil Writ Petition No.1381 of 1987 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking regularisation. Simultaneously, she also filed Civil Writ Petition No.8036 of 1987 in this Court and her termination was stayed. During the same period another Civil Writ Petition No.8602 of 1987 was also CWP No. 1959 of 1994 :2: filed before this Court in which the following interim order was passed:- “ The stay order is modified “The stay order is modified in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court dated 16th December, 1987, passed in the case of Sukhinder Kaur and others and it is ordered that the Govt. shall appoint the selected candidates against the vacancies already available in the first instance. If all the selected candidates are not accommodated than the junior most ad hoc employee will give way for the appointment of the selected candidates. It is further made clear that ad hoc employee's service shall be terminated only if his post is required to accommodate the selected candidate.” In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regularly selected Lecturers joined on the post of Philosophy on 25.01.1988 and the petitioner was relieved from service. The petitioner made various representations against her termination on the ground that respondent No.4 was junior to her and she should have been relieved on joining of the regularly selected candidates. Civil Original CWP No. 1959 of 1994 :3: Contempt Petition No.416 of 1988 came to be filed by the petitioner which was dismissed in view of the interim order granted in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Application No.8938 of 1989 and Civil Misc. No.8938-A of 1989 for impleading her as respondent and vacation of stay order obtained in CWP No.8036 of 1987 by respondent No.4. On the application of the petitioner, stay order granted in CWP No.8036 of 1987 was vacated. Aggrieved of the vacation of stay, respondent No.4 filed LPA No.1584 of 1989. Vide order dated 19.09.1989, it was directed that service of the petitioner shall not be terminated. In the meantime, CWP No.1381 of 1987 filed by the petitioner and another CWP No.856 of 1987 came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following directions:- “Heard counsel on both sides. The petitioners/appellants are 210 ad hoc Lecturers in Govt. Colleges in the State of Punjab. They have been selected as ad hoc Lecturers during the period 1979-1986. They have got to their credit the experience of teaching since then. They are seeking regularisation of their services on the ground, among others, that they have been in service for a number of years as ad hoc Lecturers and they cannot be denied of that benefit since they are CWP No. 1959 of 1994 :4: over-aged. Indeed, they are now over-aged for any fresh recruitment. But this Court cannot direct the reglarisation of their services since they had chances for appearing before the Public Service Commission for regular selection. It is, however, reasonable and proper to give them once more opportunity to appear before Punjab Public Service Commission for regular selection. There shall be relaxation of age and the qualification existed at the time of their initial appointment. The selection should be exclusively confined to those who are in service and they should not be made to compete with the fresh candidates. Till the result of the selection is published, the petitioners/appellants shall be allowed to continue their respective posts and the Govt. will have the liberty to take appropriate action in respect of those who become unsuccessful in the selection. We order accordingly. All the writ petitions/Special Leave Petitions/Civil Appeal/CMPS are disposed of in the light of these directions. CWP No. 1959 of 1994 :5: In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.” On the basis of the aforesaid order, the petitioner made an application before this Court in CWP No.8036 of 1987 and vide interim order dated 18.12.1991, the petitioner was ordered to be interviewed for the post of Lecturer. The petitioner was interviewed on 30.03.1994 and she was appointed as Lecturer vide appointment letter dated 12.04.1996, Annexure P-9 along with one Rakesh Pal Kaushik. Vide letter dated 23.04.1996, (Annexure P-10), the petitioner was asked to appear for medical examination. She was medically examined and declared fit for appointment. However, vide letter dated 22.05.1996, Annexure P-12, the petitioner was informed that before issuance of appointment letter, her character verification is required and she was asked to fill the requisite form. The petitioner complied with the said letter. Thereafter, vide letter dated 01.01.1997, Annexure P-15, the petitioner was asked to withdraw Civil Writ Petition No.1959 of 1994 i.e. the present writ petition. It seems that the petitioner did not withdraw the writ petition and continued to make representations seeking appointment. This Court vide order dated 01.03.1994 directed that one post of Lecturer be kept vacant for the petitioner, which reads as under:- CWP No. 1959 of 1994 :6: “Adjourned to 22nd March, 1994. Reply, if any, be filed before that date. One post of Lecturer shall be kept vacant so that order, if any, passed in this writ petition is complied with.” The respondents in the reply filed, though admitted the ad hoc engagement of the petitioner, but stated that the petitioner was relieved on 25.1.1985 and is not entitled to claim any benefit. It has also been admitted that the petitioner appeared for interview on 30.03.1994 in view of the orders passed by this Court. The respondents have, however, no where admitted that the petitioner was selected or appointed at any stage as Lecturer on the basis of the aforesaid interview. The first and foremost argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the letter Annexure P-9 it is evident that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Lecturer. From the reading of the aforesaid letter, it appears that the respondents had, in fact, expressed their intention to appoint the petitioner and one Rakesh Pal Kaushik. The petitioner was medically examined and declared fit for such appointment. Admittedly, one vacancy was reserved for the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 01.03.1994. Even after the selection/appointment of the petitioner, the respondents have imposed a CWP No. 1959 of 1994 :7: condition of withdrawing the writ petition vide Annexure P-15 which is totally unwarranted and illegal. On selection/appointment, the petitioner should have been permitted to join without any such condition. Asking a person to withdraw a case from the Court by coercion is against fundamental rights to seek justice from the Court. Even though petitioner has crossed the age of 50 years, but fact remains that she was prevented from joining despite selection and appointment. From the facts on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been continuously fighting for justice. Though the petitioner has hardly eight years to go in service, but she cannot be denied the fruits of litigation. This petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join service forthwith in view of the fact that one post of the Lecturer was kept reserved for the petitioner to enable her to have the fruits of litigation. On appointment/joining petitioner will not be entitled to any benefit of salary from the date of appointment till the date of joining. However, the period from the date of appointment till the date of joining shall be considered for notional benefits like fixation of pay and other retiral benefits in accordance with law. 05.03.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES