SHARANJIT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases once again highlight the unfortunate plight of the unemployed in this country who settle for less in the hope of improvement in their status and a better future but ultimately end up with a raw deal.

(2.) Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal (for short, 'SLIET'), was established by the Government of India in the year 1989. Thereafter,it attained the status of a deemed University in terms of Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.In the year 1999, SLIET set up a primary school within the premises of its campus for the benefit of the children of its employees. The Government of India sanctioned grant-in-aid for this purpose. The petitioners in CWP-22327- 2011, seven in number, entered the service of this primary school as teachers. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were employed as primary teachers on contract basis in April, 2000, while petitioners No. 3 and 4 were given similar appointments towards the end of that year. Petitioner No. 5 was initially appointed on ad hoc basis in April, 2001, and was thereafter appointed on contractual basis in May, 2004. Petitioner No. 6 was also initially appointed on ad hoc basis in January, 2002, and her status was upgraded to that of a contractual teacher in May, 2004. In May, 2006, SLIET issued a fresh advertisement for filling up the posts of primary teachers/nursery teachers and petitioners No. 1 to 6 were again selected and appointed as primary teachers on contractual basis. Petitioner No. 7 was freshly selected pursuant to this advertisement and was appointed as a contractual primary teacher. The sole petitioner in CWP-23917-2011 was initially appointed on daily wages as a primary teacher in January, 2006. She was then appointed on ad hoc basis on a monthly consolidated salary in August, 2006.Though the petitioners claim that regular posts were available in the school at the time of their recruitment, none of them were eligible for appointment as regular teachers as they did not possess JBT qualification, which was the prescribed qualification for such appointment.

(3.) The petitioners submitted representations to SLIET seeking regularization of their services in the years 2009 and 2011. They also sought pay scales applicable to regular teachers. While so, they received letter dated 11.08.2011 from SLIET stating to the effect that their contract periods were up to 24.12.2011 and that they were deemed to have been relieved from service on that date automatically. Aggrieved by this development, the petitioners came before this Court by way of the present writ petitions. Initially, their prayer was to set aside the communication dated 11.08.2011 and to direct regularization of their services or in the alternative, to permit them to continue in service till regular appointments were made. They also sought a direction to grant them regular pay scales and attendant benefits, as sanctioned by the Government, along with arrears thereof.