IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 9247 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: September 01, 2009 Gurpreet Singh and Others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have approached this Court under its writ jurisdiction for issuance of a direction quashing the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners as reported in Daily Newspaper, Jagbani that has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. The details of the case need not be referred to in so much as facts are not in dispute. The petitioners joined as Special Police Officers in Punjab Police. It has been pleaded that the petitioners have served the respondents for 15-16 years. It seems that salary was not given to the petitioners for some time whereupon the petitioners approached this Court. This Court issued certain directions requiring the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in the context of averments made in their representation/legal notice. Resultantly, an order has been passed that has not been placed on record by the petitioners, however, the respondents have C.W.P. No. 9247 of 2009 -2- placed it on record as Annexure R-3 that is dated 04.06.2009. What transpires from Annexure R-3, in brief, is that the petitioners were not qualified to serve as SPOs and, therefore, could not have been taken in service at the first place. Be that as it may, considering the length of service of the petitioners, the petitioners were given an offer to join as Punjab Home Guard Volunteer. The petitioners, however, refused to accept the offer. It is in this view of the matter that the services of the petitioners have been terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had acquired a legitimate expectation and a right to continue in service as SPO in view of length of service of the petitioners and, therefore, the order of termination is illegal. Other than this, the petitioners claim parity with the persons who have been allowed to continue as SPOs. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. Alongwith the reply, respondents have placed on record judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court delivered on 21.08.2006 while dealing with CWP No. 10291 of 2005 titled Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others. Vide this judgment, a bunch of petitions was decided. Question no. 2 framed for consideration by the Court reads as under:- “Whether the petitioners have right to continue as SPOs on being regularized in service?' The question, after discussion, has been answered against the petitioners in the following terms:- In view of the above observations, contention that petitioners had acquired a legitimate expectation or a right to continue in service as SPOs can also not be accepted. The said C.W.P. No. 9247 of 2009 -3- question has been answered against the petitioners.” It thus follows that in view of what has been held in Malkiat Singh's case (supra), the petitioners would have no right to continue as SPOs as they cannot be held to have acquired a legitimate expectation or a right to continue as SPOs on account of length of their service. I have considered the fact that the respondents did give an offer to the petitioners to continue as Punjab Home Guard Volunteers, which the petitioners refused. So far as issue of parity is concerned, the impugned order details 117 unqualified SPOs. All those who accepted the offer have been allowed to continue as Home Guard Volunteers. The petitioners being unqualified and having not accepted the offer, they would have no right to claim relief in writ jurisdiction. Considering what has been said in order Annexure R-3, I do not find that the action of the respondents is unreasonable or arbitrary. The relevant aspects of the case have been taken into account viz. the eligibility of the petitioners and an offer made to serve in Punjab Home Guard Volunteer, in the alternative, in view of the length of service of the petitioners. Facts when collectively considered indicate that the respondents are justified in not extending the tenure of service of the petitioners as SPOs. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 01.09.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?