CWP No.443 of 1988 : 1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 31.10.2008. Smt.Harmesh Kaur and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents. Present: Mr.Gurnam Singh,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Yatinder Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioners were appointed as Clerks in, the year 1985, in the Department of Social Welfare, Punjab, on ad hoc basis purely on temporary basis for a period of six months on being sponsored by the employment exchanges/Welfare Department Cell. It is specifically alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that their appointment was amongst the candidates who were sent by the various employment exchanges of the Union Territory, Chandigarh and the State of Punjab. The appointment was made on the basis of qualifying typing test and they were duly interviewed by the respondents. The petitioners appointment was, however, till six months or regular appointment is made, which ever is earlier. It is further alleged that there are 21 permanent vacancies of Clerks lying vacant in the Department of Social Welfare, Punjab. The petitioners have, accordingly, filed this petition seeking a direction for their regularization against the posts held by them. The respondents in their written statement, have not disputed CWP No.443 of 1988 : 2: the initial engagement of the petitioners in the year 1985 on the basis of selection made by the respondents through type-test and interview. It is however, stated that in the year 1987, temporary appointees were again subjected to type-test on 30.11.1987 by the Selection Committee. The petitioners failed to qualify the type-test and were not called for interviews which were scheduled to be held on 15.01.1988. It is, accordingly, stated that since the petitioners have failed to qualify the type-test, they could not be appointed on regular basis. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It is not in dispute that the petitioners initial appointment was for six months or till regular appointments are made. There is nothing on record to show that at any stage regular appointments were made by inviting applications and provided opportunity to all the eligible candidates. Though it is averred in the written statement that another type-test was held on 30.11.1987 through the Selection Committee and eligible candidates were interviewed, but this seems to be a reference in respect of ad hoc appointees. When selection was made against available vacancies, the services of the petitioners should have been dispensed with if they have failed to qualify the type-test and they should not have been retained in service. They were allowed to continue and it is informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioners are still in service. It is more than 23 years now. The initial appointment of the petitioners was not through back door rather they were selected by a valid process of selection. The issue of regularization is no more res integra and is covered by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka CWP No.443 of 1988 : 3: and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC, 01, wherein the following directions have been made:- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filed up, in cases where CWP No.443 of 1988 : 4: temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any, already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by- passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” The petitioners have put in more than 10 years service and their initial appointment was not illegal. The respondents-State is under an obligation to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the aforesaid judgment and government instructions, if any, on the subject on the basis of Umadevi’s case (supra). In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization in the light of the terms indicated in paragraph 53 of the judgment of Umadevi’s case (supra). Let the process of consideration be completed within a period of six months from today. On such consideration, the respondents-State is directed to pass appropriate orders. No costs. 31.10.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO