STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SMT. DROPTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Dropti Devi and Santosh Kumari, petitioners in CWP No. 1431 of 1980 and Smt. Sneh Lata, petitioner in CWP No. 818 of 1980 successfully staked their claim for regularisation in service on the dint of policy decision taken by the Punjab Government vide order dated May 3, 1977 as also Rule 14 of the Punjab Education Service, Class - III, School Cadre Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1955') inasmuch as petitions filed on their behalf were allowed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated Nov. 1, 1991. It is against this order of learned Single Judge that present appeal bearing No. 361 of 1992 has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the State of Punjab, only against judgment recorded in CWP No. 1431 of 1980.

(2.) As mentioned above, no appeal has been filed against the judgment arising from CWP No. 818 of 1980 but it is the facts of that case which were taken into consideration while deciding the two writ petitions by a common order, as mentioned above.

(3.) The bare minimum facts, which are identical in both the writ petitions and that need necessary mention, reveal that after passing matriculation examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Sneh Lata petitioner passed JBT course in the year 1967 conducted by the Registrar, Department of Education, Rajasthan. In the year 1968 she also passed Punjabi upto Matric from the Panjab University, Chandigarh. On the basis of the qualifications, referred to above, she came to be appointed as Basic Trained Teacher in Government Primary School, Bulawi vide letter dated Oct. 30, 1975, Annexure P-1, on adhoc basic. Insofar as petitioners, Dropti Devi and Santosh Kumari, in CWP No. 1431 of 1980 are concerned, they also, after passing Matriculation Examination, passed their JBT examination from Rajasthan State and Himachal Pradesh and they came to be appointed as JBT teachers on adhoc basis on Nov. 3, 1973 and Dec. 4, 1973 respectively. The Government, vide its decision dated May 3, 1977 decided to regularise the services of adhoc employees, who fulfilled the requirement of completion of one year's service on March 31, 1977. It is not disputed that as per the policy decision, as referred to above, an adhoc employee, who had completed one year minimum service as on Sept. 30, 1980 had to fulfil the other conditions inclusive of basic or minimum educational qualifications required for the post on which his services were to be regularised. It is also not disputed that by virtue of the same very instructions, it was further provided that the case of such ad hoc employees, who had completed three years' service on Sept. 30, 1980 and had satisfactory record of service, but who did not fulfil other conditions with regard to qualification, age or mode of their initial appointment were also to be considered for regularisation in relaxation of the aforesaid conditions if the departmental service rules, applicable to those employees, may provide for relaxation. On the day when the case of petitioner came up for consideration for regularisation in service, admittedly she had completed five years' service. Despite that the plea of the petitioner for regularisation was rejected vide orders dated February 2, 1980. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner staked claim for regularisation in service.