CWP No.5449 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 10.05.2010 Shanti Devi ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. RN Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RKS Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 27.2.1996 sent a requisition to the Rural Employment Exchange to fill up the post of Sweeper lying vacant in the school. The Assistant Employment Officer, Tosham, sent names of 12 candidates registered with the employment exchange to respondent No.4 for employment as per the requisition. The petitioner's name was at serial No.1. On the basis of the interview conducted by the Committee constituted by respondent No.4, the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Sweeper. The petitioner joined as such on 27.03.1996. Since then the petitioner is working on the post uninterruptedly. Now the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 20.03.2010 (Annexure P-18) terminating the service of the petitioner on the solitary ground that her appointment was during the period of ban on employment imposed by the government. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. CWP No.5449 of 2010 -2- The stand of the respondents in the reply is also that the petitioner was appointed during the period of ban on employment. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner is continuously working since 1996 and is being paid from the state exchequer. It is now more than 14 years that the petitioner has been working. Termination of her service on the ground of recruitment during the ban period at this belated stage is totally illegal and unwarranted. If the petitioner's appointment was during ban period the respondents should have initiated action immediately on appointment so that the petitioner could have taken appointment some where else. The petitioner has been allowed to work for 14 years and at this belated stage, the impugned order is unsustainable in law particularly when the petitioner has been deprived of seeking any alternative employment during all this period. It is neither equitable nor legal to throw the petitioner out of service on this ground. Without going into other aspects of the matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.03.2010 (Annexure P-18) is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be re-engaged and the break in service shall be treated as continuity in service without any wages. No costs. 10.05.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO