IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 739/2000 and CWP No. 322/2001. Date of decision :20.11.2008. CWP No. 739/2001 Prem Bhardwaj & others Petitioners Vs State of HP & others Respondents For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate For the respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. AG. For the respondent No.4 Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate For the respondents 9,12,26,33,36, 37,54,56, 60,65 and 83 Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent 89 Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. CWP No. 322/2001 Trilok Nath …Petitioner Vs State of HP & ors …Respondents. For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate For the respondents 1 Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr. & 2. Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. For the respondent No.3 Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Adv. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Per Surjit Singh, J (oral) Heard. In the present two Writ petitions No.739/2000 and 322/2001, orders dated 25th August, 2000 and 10th May, 2001 passed by the State Administrate Tribunal have been challenged. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. Relevant facts for deciding the two writ petitions may be noticed. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 739/2000 challenged the regularization of ad hoc appointment of private respondents No. 6 to 89 as College lecturers by filing an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that when ad hoc appointments of the aforesaid private respondents were made, Recruitment and Promotion rules were in force and as per those rules, appointments could have been made only by inviting applications from petitioners by way of advertisement in newspapers and by other means. It was alleged that private respondents had been appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1989 and their appointments were regularized in the year 1996 without affording opportunity to other eligible candidates, to seek appointment as lecturers and this was contrary to the Recruitment and Promotion rules. In the other petition i.e. CWP No. 322/2001, petitioners therein challenged the regularization of service of Sanskrit teachers by filing separate Original Application before the Tribunal. In that case, private respondents had been initially appointed as Voluntary Sanskrit teachers in the year 1991 and their appointments were regularized in the year 1999. In that original application also, it was alleged that there existed Recruitment and Promotion Rules which provided for regular appointment only after advertising the posts so as to enable all eligible candidates to apply and then to make appointments by following the due selection process. 3. Original application against the appointment of College lecturers was dismissed vide order dated 25th August, 2000 and the 3 original application challenging the regularization of Sanskrit teachers was dismissed vide order dated 10th May, 2001. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners has submitted that the action of the State of Himchal Pradesh and its functionaries, impleaded as respondents in regularizing the services of private respondents in both the writ petitions, is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a large number of cases. He has stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly ruled that where Recruitment and Promotion rules are in existence, ad hoc appointments cannot be regularized without following the procedure of the recruitment and that where the rules provide for advertisement of posts and invitation of applications from all eligible candidates, regular appointment can be made only by following such procedure prescribed in the rules. Authorities cited by the learned counsel are as follows; Dr. M.A. Haque & others Vs. Union of India and others (1993) 2 SCC 213, J&K Public Service Commission and others Vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and others (1994) 2 SCC 630, State of H.P. Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma and another (1996) 7 SCC 562, E. Ramakrishnan & others Vs. State of Kerala & others (1996) 10 SCC 565, P. Ravindran & others Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry & others (1997) 1 SCC 350, Dr. Meera Massey & others Vs. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra & others (1998) 3 SCC 88, Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi (3) & others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Nagendra Chandra & others Vs. State of Jharkhand & others (2008) 1 SCC 798. 4 5. No doubt, in the aforesaid judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the presence of recruitment rules, ad hoc appointments cannot be regularized by the State government without following the procedure laid down in the recruitment rules, but in the instant cases, long periods of time have lapsed since the initial ad hoc appointments and regularization of the private respondents. In the case of college lecturers, a period of almost 20 years has elapsed since initial appointments were made and in the case of Sanskrit teachers, a period of more than 16 years has elapsed. Not only the private respondents, but even the petitioners, who claimed that they also had the right to be considered for appointment because of their being eligible for the posts of college lecturers and Sanskrit teachers, must have become over age and thus ineligible for being considered. In fact we have been told that petitioner No.2 in Civil Writ Petition No. 739/2000 is now a member of Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh and the other petitioner has been working as college lecturer for the last more than 10 years. 6. In view of long lapse of time, we do not think these cases to be fit for exercise of our discretionary power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because that would result in unsettling the settled position, after very long lapse of time. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed, so also the pending applications. ( R.B. Misra ), J. 20th November, 2008(sl) ( Surjit Singh ), J.