IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3636 of 1989 Date of decision: 18.05.2010 Prem Nath Bhandari ….Petitioner versus Punjab School Education Board through its Chairman and another. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurvinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate, for the respondents. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges an order of termination of service issued on 10.11.1988 (Annexure P-8). The claim of the petitioner is on the basis that he had been appointed as an adhoc Clerk with the respondent on 04.11.1980. His period of service had been extended from time to time. He was considered for the post of Assistant Project Officer on 19.07.1983 and after closing of the project, his services were terminated on 30.11.1983 only to be reemployed as a Clerk on 01.12.1983. This period of engagement was also extended from time to time and the last of such letters of extension obtains from the Punjab School Education Board on 30.09.1988. The order reads that he was Civil Writ Petition No.3636 of 1989 - 2 - appointed upto 28.02.1989 on condition that if his work and conduct was not found satisfactory, his services would be terminated without giving any notice. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on 10.11.1988 complaining of some negligent act when a student who had applied for admission to the Board was rejected out of consideration by the misconduct attributed to the petitioner and another person by name Amrik Singh, who were alleged to have beaten up the student and demanding bribe. This show cause notice took a provisional view that the petitioner and another were liable of censure and they were required to give an explanation for the same within a period of 15 days. Even without waiting for the response, an order of termination was issued on 10.11.1988 by referring to the fact that the work and conduct were not satisfactory. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that he had been continuously in employment from the year 1980 for nearly 8 years and he could not have been terminated without holding a full-fledged enquiry relating to his work and conduct. It is also his contention that the termination of service itself is mala fide and it was not on account of any genuine assessment that the work and conduct were not satisfactory. 3. The case which has been instituted in the year 1989 comes up for disposal after two decades and to this Court, the most predominant consideration before a person could be reinstated in State service is whether the petitioner had any service that could qualify for demanding reinstatement. The respondent is a public body and the appointment Civil Writ Petition No.3636 of 1989 - 3 - could not have been otherwise than through recruitment rules. If the petitioner's employment was to a sanctioned post or the petitioner held a permanent post, the termination of service could be complained of. If, on the other hand, the petitioner was on a temporary post and liable to be terminated on certain contingencies, the termination could not be successfully challenged and the prayer for reinstatement could not become possible. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that several other persons, who had been appointed on temporary basis, had subsequently obtained regular service and only he was singled out for being terminated from service. 4. With no material available for the petitioner to contend that there is any permanent post to which the petitioner could be absorbed. I do not find it meritorious to avail to the petitioner a right to claim reinstatement by having the impugned order cancelled. The challenge to the mala fides of the decision is justified on the ground that the Chairman of the Board is also made personally a party as the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has not filed any independent written statement but it is contended that even apart from an occasion when a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner, there was yet another occasion when there was a complaint against the quality of work of the petitioner when a person, who had passed out, had been entered as having failed by the negligent conduct of the petitioner. A detailed enquiry was alleged to have been held and a report was submitted to the Chairman on 12.10.1988 when it was reported that some candidates, who had been declared as failed, actually had “compartments”. Situations which could Civil Writ Petition No.3636 of 1989 - 4 - have enabled the petitioner to obtain reconsideration of the whole matter by directing an enquiry to be conducted obtains no meaning at this length of time for a person, who held merely a temporary service. The case has stood down such a long time perhaps for no fault of the petitioner but before a decision could be given providing to the petitioner the continuity of service and reinstatement, there ought to be a strong basis that even apart from some technical flaw, there is something substantial for the petitioner to stake his claim for his employment. 5. The grievance stands unmerited only by the type of service he held and the inequitable situation of providing to a person any benefit at this length of time. This is not a case where I believe that there should be an intervention under Article 226. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.05.2010. sanjeev