IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16899 of 2008 Date of decision: May 06, 2010 Jagsir Singh and another Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent No. 1 Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 2 K. KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners seek for absorption for the posts of Clerks to which they had been appointed on deputation on 21.1.1997. The deputation was for a period of one year and the second respondent-Board itself appears to have appointed for a period of 1 year only but they continued beyond the said period also when the second respondent approached the Govt. of Punjab to grant approval for their absorption. Since at that time 15 clerks were available, it appears that the sanction was not granted by the Govt. and the second respondent, therefore, addressed communication to Registrar Cooperative Society Punjab which was the parent department of the petitioners on 6.11.2000. 2. Since the Govt. decided to direct the employees to be sent back to the parent department, they were being sent back on the ground also that their services were not required by the Board. It so happened that the parent department namely, Mansa Cooperative Spinning Mills had been wound up. Therefore, the petitioners, on being found not necessary CWP No. 16899 of 2008 2 by the second respondent, had come to a situation where they had lost their employment and, therefore, they approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 1459 of 2001 seeking for absorption with the respondents. The petitioners contended that there were other persons like Paramjit Singh and others who had been absorbed, although they had also come on deputation from the very same establishment. This order was passed on 15.5.2007 on a statement of counsel on behalf of the Board that the Board would consider their absorption as per the Punjab Pollution Control Board, Employees Service Regulation, 2000. 3. The Regulations of 2000 gave place to new Regulations requiring some additional qualification for the posts of clerks with knowledge of computers. The petitioners who had been originally taken under deputation when they did not have knowledge of computers could not be considered since they did not possess the requisite qualification. The petitioners now contend that they have since undergone 6 months computer course from reputed institution and learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, seeks consideration for absorption. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Board contends that the petitioners could not obtain parity with other persons who drawn from engineering cadre and if any absorption will have to be made, it could relate only to persons who possess the requisite qualifications as per the present Rules as otherwise the petitioners would have to come only through competitive process for selection. Any absorption made on the ground that the petitioners had been taken on deputation in the year 1997 would amount to arbitrary exercise of power by the Board that would fall foul of the dispensation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC 1. 5. Even persons who have gone on deputation may not have CWP No. 16899 of 2008 3 right to demand absorption unless they are specific Rules and Regulations providing for the same. This case grapples with a peculiar situation where they had already approached this Court and statement had been made on behalf of the Board that the petitioners claims for absorption would be considered in the light of Regulations of 2000. The Board took a stand that the petitioners were indeed entitled to absorption but they were required to be considered for absorption in light of the Regulations prevailing in the year 2000. If subsequent regulations requiring acquisition of computer knowledge has become an essential qualification, the petitioners claim that they have obtained such qualifications through reputed institutions. It is admitted that there are vacant posts and it will be only just that the State considers the plea of the petitioners by relaxing such rules to enter into service as the Regulations provide for. The petitioners can not compete with the new entrants in the year 2000. The fact is that they had entered service in the year 1997 and they continued in service. Even the second respondent - Board had earlier recommended their case for absorption. To obtain to them the benefit of such consideration now, they are fettered by the fact that from the year 2000, there have been changes in regulation as regards qualifications. After all, the petitioners claim that they possess the qualifications even as per the latest regulations. It is not a case of back door entry which the Supreme Court dispensation in Uma Devi's case (Supra) found. It is a case where they came from the cooperative mills on deputation under process known to law and by unexpected turn of events the Cooperative Society remains closed. To show them the door would be grossly unjust. Justice would be best served if the second respondent considers the claims of the petitioners and makes appropriate recommendation to the Govt. for absorption, if they otherwise fulfill the qualification. The Govt. shall reconsider the plea for absorption if it comes from the second respondent. The entire exercise of making appropriate CWP No. 16899 of 2008 4 recommendation to the State for grant of such sanction shall be made within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioners shall not claim any benefit for the period when the deputation came to an end till the date when they are reconsidered for absorption. 6. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) 06.05.2010 JUDGE reena