SANGEET KARLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Technical Assistant keeping in view the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as the same was illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Section 25-H of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner has averred that she was appointed as Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 + Rs. 100/- as special pay in the respondent-Bank on temporary basis for a period of 89 days in 1995. She fulfilled all the qualifications required for the post of Technical Assistant. Therefore, she was granted extensions on various dates, the last being on July 22, 1996. Her services were regularised on August 8, 1996. Later on, a show cause notice was issued to her on October 4, 1996, whereby the regularisation order dated August 8, 1996 was sought to be withdrawn. The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of regularisation order in C.W.P. No. 16597 of 1996. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition as the respondent-Bank had taken a stand that services of the petitioner were regularised by mistake as there was no post of Technical Assistant available in the Bank. The order of the High Court dated December 17, 1996 is Annexure P-l. Thereafter, the petitioner was retrenched under Section 25-F(b) of the Act. Retrenchment order is Annexure P-3. In the course of hearing of C.W.P. No. 16597 of 1996, the categoric stand of the Bank was that the petitioner had been erroneously regularised and, in fact, there was no vacant post available and no regular person could be appointed without the availability of a vacant post. The petitioner approached the respondent-Bank several times for appointment as a Technical Assistant against any vacant post, but she was orally informed that there was no vacant post available and as and when post did fall vacant, she will be adjusted accordingly as per provision of Section 25-H of the Act. The petitioner in the meanwhile learnt that the respondent-Bank had employed respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on contract basis. The petitioner then gave representations to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 that her case should be considered for appointment as Technical Assistant as a post had fallen vacant on April 9, 1997. One such representation is Annexure P-4. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who were appointed on contract basis were given extensions time and again. It has further been averred that no advertisement of any kind prior to the engagement of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was made, nor any selection procedure was followed, thus violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) The Government of Haryana had issued instructions on April 2, 1999 and May 3, 1999 imposing complete ban on fresh recruitments and the persons working on contract basis were exempted from the ban but only if those were made in accordance with the policies framed by, the Chief Secretary. On June 12, 1999. respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed on regular basis as Technical Assistants in the respondent-Bank without any advertisement, open selection or test and interview and without inviting the petitioner or any other person. No procedure was followed, meaning thereby that appointments of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were by back door entry. Posting orders of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 dated June 22, 1999 and June 23, 1999 are attached as Annexures P-7 and P-8 respectively. A representation dated June 23, 1999 was submitted by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 which is annexure P-9. However, no action was taken thereon.