GEETA RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed to the post of Matron in the Central Jail, Patiala, on ad hoc basis from 17th April, 1983 to 4th August, 1983 and again from 5th November, 1983 to 30th November, 1983. The petitioner was again appointed as such on 18th July, 1986, for 89 days and this appointment was being extended from time to time till 31st October, 1988, when her services were dispensed with by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2). The copy of the order has been appended as Annexure P-3. It has been further averred in the petition that though the appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis, yet it was against a regular vacancy and there are number of posts of Matrons still available. This fact was sought to be substantiated from advertisement for the posts of 31 Matrons in the Punjabi Daily Ajit. The petitioner is said to have made a representation on 4th November, 1988 to the respondents bringing the above-mentioned facts to their notice, wherein she also mentioned that she was Middle pass and belonged to Balmiki Community, which has been notified as Scheduled Caste.

(2.) The petitioner impugned the action of the respondents terminating her services on 31st October, 1988 (Annexure P-3), when she had completed more than two years' of service. She claimed regularisation in view of the judgment of this Court in Piara Singh v. State of Haryana, 1988 4 SLR 739. The respondents in their reply to the writ petition, had taken the stand that vide letter dated 14th February, 1989, the Government of Punjab in the Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Jail Branch) had approved the qualifications etc. as suggested by the Inspector General of Prisons vide his letter dated 6th January, 1989 and the educational qualifications were Matric/Higher Secondary Part I and since the petitioner was under-Matriculate, she could not be regularised.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the qualifications of Matriculation for the post of Matron were laid down on 14th February, 1989 by the State Government, whereas petitioner's services had been terminated on 31st October, 1988. For regularising the petitioner, her qualifications had to be seen on the date when her services were sought to be terminated and not the qualifications which were laid down after that date. The learned counsel further submitted that in any case once the petitioner had worked for a pretty long time as a Matron, though on ad hoc basis, she had gained sufficient experience and even if she was lacking the minimum qualifications at the time of initial entry into the service, it would be illegal not to regularise her on the ground that she did not have the requisite qualifications. For this proposition, he relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 AIR(SC) 371. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under in para 6 of the report :-