C.W.P No. 6594 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 6594 of 2008 Date of decision : March 30, 2009 Mahi Pal Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner was appointed to the post of Instructor on adhoc basis w.e.f 17.5.1996 after following the procedure of selection. He is aggrieved of the order dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure P-12) whereby his claim for regularisation under the policy dated 1.10.2003 was declined on the ground that his ACRs for the period 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 were average. Counsel for the respondents has sought to justify this on the ground of condition No.1(iii) of the policy which has been annexed as C.W.P No. 6594 of 2008 ::2:: Annexure P-2 with the written statement. Condition No.1(iii) reads as follows :- “1. Adhoc Employees/Contract Employees.- xx xx xx iii) that the work and conduct of such employees shall be of overall good category and no disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings are pending against them.” I put it to counsel for the respondents that the words used in the said condition are `overall good', while vide the impugned order the petitioner's case has been decided only on the basis of consideration of his two ACRs. Counsel for the respondents has argued that since in the policy dated 1.10.2003 the relevant period to be considered was three years' service (before a person could be entitled to be considered for regularisation), thus, the record of only three years has to been seen. I am afraid that no such convoluted interpretation is suggested from the said condition. No doubt, the government has a right to consider the work and conduct before regularizing an employee and though the government would also have the right to prescribe any period-including the period of three years-yet it cannot be said that the interpretation of the said condition as it now stands, lends itself to this conclusion. The apparent conclusion which can be arrived at on a perusal of the above condition would be that the entire service record of the petitioner has to be considered and evaluated and if the same is overall good then the petitioner would be entitled for consideration for regularization. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that a similar condition C.W.P No. 6594 of 2008 ::3:: has been struck down by the Delhi High Court in Surendra vs Union of India, 1997(1) SCT 175. In my opinion, it may not be necessary to dilate on the above judgment since the same is not required for the decision of this case. Counsel for the respondents has further argued that now with the passing of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs Uma Devi, 2006(2) SCT 462, there is no policy in existence whereby the case of the petitioner can be considered. In my opinion, even this argument is fallacious. The petitioner is not to be considered for regularization but is to be reconsidered after keeping in mind the interpretation as brought out above. The present case can, thus, be classified as a case of remand and the respondents would not be entitled to take into consideration any subsequent event but the case would have to be decided notionally on the same date i.e 13.3.2006 which was the date of the original order. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure P-12) is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to take a fresh decision within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 30, 2009. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 6594 of 2008 ::4:: ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 30, 2009. JUDGE `kk'