IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3035 of 1988 Date of Decision: 8.1.2009. Vijay Laxmi ---Petitioner Vs. Director Public Instructions, Punjab and another ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Petitioner was engaged as J.B.T. Teacher on 24.1.1984 on temporary basis for a period of 89 days. Her temporary engagement was extended from time to time. The petitioner was, however, appointed on regular/permanent basis through the process of selection in the year 1990 and is working since then as J.B.T. Teacher. The claim of the petitioner in the present petition is for regularisation of her adhoc service rendered by her till her selection/appointment in the year 1990. The question of regularisation has been finally set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka Vs. Uma Devi and others reported as (2006) 4 SCC 1. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that where the initial appointment of the appointee is not legal having been made without adopting the due procedure of law, such appointee has CWP No. 3035 of 1988 -2- no right of regularisation. Regularisation is permissible only where the initial appointment is irregular and the appointee has continued. In the present case the petitioner's initial appointment was only for 89 days without adopting any process of law and thus the service rendered by the petitioner in a temporary/stop gap capacity, cannot be regularised. Admittedly, the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation in terms of the Uma Devi's judgement. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adhoc period may be ordered to be counted for pensionary benefits. Since, that is not a claim prayed for in the petition, the petitioner is at liberty to seek any appropriate remedy at the time of her retirement or at any other appropriate stage and the present order shall not come in the way of the petitioner. With these observations the present petition is disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 8.1.2009 lucky