CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1922 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.02.2010 **** Satinder Pal Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. R.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Maninder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P15), whereby, she has been denied regularization of ad hoc services and her services have been ordered to be terminated after about 30 years of service. (2). The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Hindi Teacher on ad hoc basis after her name was sponsored through the Employment Exchange, by the District Education Officer, Ludhiana vide memo dated 16.10.1979 (Annexure CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 2 – P1). The petitioner joined on 17.10.1979 and is working as such till date. She has completed more than 30 years of continuous and uninterrupted ad hoc service. (3). The petitioner possesses educational qualification of Matric, Prabhakar OT. While there is no controversy regarding recognition of the Matriculation, Prabhakar qualifications possessed by the petitioner, her one-year Teachers’ Training Course (OT) passed out from Gandhi Hindi Vidhyapeeth Prayag, Uttar Pardesh in the year 1977-78 is alleged to be bogus on the ground that the said Institute is not recognized by the University Grants Commission and is excluded in its list of ‘recognized Universities’ or the ‘Deemed Universities’ dated 30.06.1994. On this premise only that the petitioner has been denied regularization of her services vide the impugned order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P15). (4). There is indeed no controversy that the Government of Punjab had issued a Policy/Circular dated 28.10.1980 (Annexure P3) whereby services of its ad hoc employees who had completed one-year service as on 30.09.1980 were ordered to be regularised. The petitioner fell short CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 3 – of one-year service as on the cut-off date and her services could not be regularized under the said Policy. The State of Punjab thereafter issued yet another Policy Circular dated 26.10.1982 (Annexure P4), whereby, services of all those ad hoc employees who had completed minimum of one-year service on or before 26.10.1982, were decided to be regularized. It would be apposite to reproduce para 8 of the aforesaid policy decision which read as follows;- “8. The case of such adhoc/temporarily appointed employees who have already completed three years service on the date of issue of this order and have satisfactory record of service but who do not fulfill the prescribed conditions with regard to qualifications, age or mode of their initial recruitment will also be considered for regularization in relaxation of these conditions if the Departmental Service Rules applicable to these employees provided for relaxation of these conditions of recruitment.” (Emphasis applied) (5). After the above-mentioned Policy, series of other Policy-decisions were also taken by the Government of Punjab for regularization of services of its ad hoc/temporary employees including the Policy/Circular dated 29.03.1985 (Annexure P5), whereby, services of all those ad hoc/temporary employees who had completed two years’ service as on 1st April, 1985 were ordered CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 4 – to be regularized. Para 2 of the aforesaid Policy/Circular provide as follows:- “2. The cases of such adhoc/temporarily appointed employees who have already completed three years service on 1st April, 1985 and have satisfactory record of service but who do not fulfill the prescribed conditions with regard to qualifications, age or mode of their initial recruitment will also be considered for regularization in relaxation of these conditions if the Departmental Service Rules applicable to these employees provided for relaxation of these conditions of recruitment.” (Emphasis applied) (6). Unfortunately, the benefit of above-mentioned Policy-decisions was not granted to the petitioner and she continued to serve on ad hoc basis though without any interruption. In the year 2008, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction for regularization of her services from the due date. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim by passing a speaking order. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P15) has been passed declining regularization of the petitioner’s ad hoc services on the solitary ground already noticed above. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 5 – (8). In my considered view, the action of the respondents in denying regularization of services of the petitioner even after retaining her for a period of over 30 years on ad hoc basis is patently arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair and cannot sustain. The very object of the Policy-decisions dated 26.10.1982 and 29.03.1985 (Annexures P4 and P5) was to remove the uncertainty amongst the ad hoc teachers/employees and to extend them the protection available to a civil servant under Article 311 of the Constitution. It was with this avowed object that the Policy/Circular intended to encompass within its purview even those temporary/ad-hoc employees who were lacking in the prescribed qualifications, age etc. but were otherwise working to the satisfaction of the competent authority. There is not even a whisper in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner’s work or conduct was ever found to be unsatisfactory. That being so, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of paragraph 8 of the Policy- decision dated 26.10.1982 (Annexure P4) as she had completed more than three-years of ad hoc service on the date of issue of the Policy/Circular. Similarly, she was fully eligible for the grant of CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 6 – concession extended by the Policy dated 29.03.1985 to the ineligible ad-hoc employees. (9). It needs to be mentioned here that according to the respondents, the petitioner lacks qualification of only the Orientation Course of one-year duration meant for the newly-recruited Teachers. The petitioner, having worked to the satisfaction of the respondents for a period of over 30 years is no longer a novice in teaching skills and the rule prescribing that qualification, at least in her case, has broken down completely and/or shall be deemed to have been relaxed qua her. The respondents, at this belated stage, cannot be heard to say that the petitioner ought to have possessed one-year OT Course from an institution which according to them is ‘recognized’. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner never concealed the fact and the nature of Course and the Institution from where she passed, was very much brought to the knowledge of the respondents at the very first opportunity. (10). There appears to be some substance in the petitioner’s contention that the impugned order is cryptic to the extent it says that the Institute from where the petitioner got her OT Course is not CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 7 – amongst the recognized Universities/Deemed Universities listed/circulated by the University Grants Commission on 30th June, 1994. Should it mean that the said Institute was recognized before 30th June, 1994? As noticed earlier, the petitioner passed out the one-year OT Course in the year 1977-78 and soon thereafter she was appointed by the respondents on ad hoc basis. It, thus, appears that earlier the respondents themselves were not sure about recognition of the said Course and recruited the petitioner as well as other several similarly-situated candidates in the Education Department. Some of the uncontroverted instances have been referred to by the petitioner in Para 32 of the writ petition as well as Para 4 of her Re-joinder. The petitioner, to some extent has, therefore, made out a case of differential treatment meted out to her in utter disregard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (11). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P15) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the Policy/ Circular CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 8 – dated 26.10.1982 (Annexure P4) and/or dated 29.03.1985 (Annexure P5) and issue appropriate orders in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the consequential service benefits arising therefrom. (12). Ordered accordingly. (13). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 17.02.2010 vishal shonkar