PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, two writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition No. 4269 of 2001 titled as "Ms. Paramjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab and Another" and Civil Writ Petition No. 4272of 2001 titled as "Parmala Devi v. The State of Punjab and Another" shall be decided altogether. Both these writ petitions were decided earlier in terms of judgment rendered in Ms. Manjit Batta v. State of Punjab and Anr. (Civil Writ Petition No. 4289 of 2001 decided on 08.07.2003). Lateron, a review application was filed and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.07.2005, had recalled the order dated 08.07.2003 and directed the Registry to list both the writ petitions as per roster, for disposal.

(2.) In this writ petition, a prayer has been made that the order dated 5.10.2000 (Annexure P12) whereby the claim of the Petitioner, for counting of ad hoc service towards seniority, has been rejected, be set aside and the service, rendered by the Petitioner w.e.f. 09.04.1985, be counted towards seniority. It has been further prayed that the entire service of the Petitioner, rendered as a Clerk w.e.f. 09.04.1985, in the office of Respondent No. 2-Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab, be counted and she be placed in the seniority list of the Clerks at serial No. 45A. Thereafter, the consequential benefits be also extended to the Petitioner.

(3.) It is a case of the Petitioner that she was appointed as a Clerk on 09.04.1985 in the office of the Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab, in pursuance of the call extended by the Employment Exchange. She was selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee and the appointment letter dated 02.09.1985 (Annexure P1) reveals that the initial appointment of the Petitioner as a Clerk was on ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days only. It is further averred that in December 1985, another Departmental Selection Committee was constituted to make regular selection of the Clerks. The claim of the Petitioner was again considered for regular appointment and she was re-appointed as such w.e.f. 01.01.1986. It is pleaded that there was no break in her service and she has been continuously working in the office of Respondent No. 2-Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab, since 09.04.1985. Respondent No. 2-Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab, had sent a communication dated 18.12.1986 (Annexure P2) to the Secretary to the Punjab Government, Education Department, Punjab. It was stated therein that the Departmental Selection Committee, so constituted, had recommended that 15 employees, out of the ad hoc employees, had been issued regular appointment letters. Out of 15 employees, eight have been selected for Subordinate Offices instead of Head office, on the basis of merit list. Six employees filed the writ petition in the High Court and their termination was stayed. Those six employees, who were selected by the Committee and obtained the stay order, their names were as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_372_LAWS(P&H)10_2010.htm</FRM>