UMED SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 31.3.2000 (Annexures P -2 to P -4) passed by the Block Education Officer, Charkhi Dadri (Bhiwani) and further for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as kahar and regularise his services.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was duly selected as a pan time kahar on 27.5.1988 and joined his service on 6.7.1988. He continuously worked on the post till 1998, when the petitioners approached this Court. The State Govt. framed policy of regularisation of class IV part time employee vide policy Annexure P1 whereby it was decided that the services of part time class IV employees be regularised against regular sanctioned vacant post if they fulfil the requisite qualification prescribed for regular class IV employees in the Haryana State Secondary Education Field Office (Group D) Service Rules, 1998 and who were recruited through Employment Exchange having atleast the experience of three years on their respective posts and the candidates who were recruited on part time basis directly having the experience of 6 years on their respective posts, were to be regularised. In the year 1998 number of part time class IV employees approached this Court seeking the regularisation of their services on the ground that those who have worked continuously for the last 10 -15 years their services be regularised. During the pendency of writ petition No. 643 of 1998 policy Annexure P -1, was framed and produced before this Court whereupon necessary directions were issued by this Court for considering the case of the part time employees, for regularisation of their services in view of the policy framed. On the basis of the directions of this Court necessary directions were issued on 5.3.1998 by the respondents for consideration of cases of part time employees for regularising their services keeping in view the policy dated 30.12.1998 (Annexure P -1). The case of the petitioner was considered but was rejected arbitrarily by the respondents vide letter dated 31.3.2000 (Annexure P -2). Besides, vide impugned letter of the same date (Annexure P -3), the respondent -authorities also issued directions of dispensing with the services of part time ka - hars after 31.3.2000. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned orders Annexure P -2 and P -3 were issued by the respondents on the basis of instructions issued by respondent No. 2 the Director, Primary Education, Haryana. The services of the petitioners were dispensed with on 31.3.2000 vide Annexure P -4. The respondents, on the other hand retained the serv ices of Gurdeep Singh who was junior in the select list and also regularised his services vide order dated 5.8.1999 thereby violating the petitioner's right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further claimed that his date of birth being 12.5.1963 he was only 23 years of age when he was initially appointed as part time kahar in July 1986. Ever since from the date of appointment he continued in his service and the respondents cannot claim that his serv ices cannot be regularised because he has become over age.

(3.) IN an identical case titled Baldu Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2000 (3) SCT 288 (P&H) (DB) :, 2000(2) RSJ 160 (DB), this Court has considered these two objections raised by the State Govt. in respect of regularisation of a part time class IV employee i.e. the age limit as well as the non -availability of the post and rejected both the pleas. In that case, the Division Bench observed as under : -