SURJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were originally appointed either through Subordinate Service Selection Board or through the Employment Exchanges in the Punjab Education Department as Clerks. Since there were no avenues of Promotion for the petitioners, they applied to the department for permission to improve their educational qualifications so as to enable them to seek appointments on higher posts. On their request, the department allowed the petitioners to improve their educational qualifications. The petitioners improved their qualifications either by passing B.Ed. or other professional qualifications and made themselves fully eligible and qualified for their appointments to the posts of Masters/Mistresses. The petitioners along with other employees who had improved their educational qualifications made representations to the Government that they should be adjusted against posts for which they are eligible and qualified. The State of Punjab on 11.3.1977 (Annexure P-1) decided to adjust all those employees who had improved their educational qualifications on the posts for which they had made themselves eligible. It was also decided that in case a particular employee has improved his educational qualifications and has not been adjusted in the department in which he is working, then he should be adjusted in other departments where posts occur in future. In pursuance of the decision dated 11.3.1977, the District Education Officer appointed the petitioners on teaching posts. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Social Studies Mistress on 17.11.1978 whereas petitioners No. 2 to 6 were appointed Masters/DPE on 15.11.1978. Strangely enough on 22.11.1978, the District Education Officer decided to terminate the services of the petitioners on the ground that benefit of decision dated 11.3.1977 was available only to those employees who were working in A-Class offices whereas the petitioners were working in B-Class office and thus not eligible for being appointed as Masters. Being aggrieved of the decision of the District Education Officer, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4946 of 1978 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.12.1978. In the concluding paragraph the Division Bench was pleased to hold as under :-

(2.) After the decision of the writ petition, the State of Punjab issued instructions as contained in circular letter dated 28.10.1980, Annexure P-4 to the effect that services of all ad hoc employees working in various government departments/officers shall be regularised who have completed one year service on 30.9.1980. Since the petitioners had already completed one year service as ad hoc employees on 30.9.1980, they made a representation for being regularised in view of the decision taken as per circular letter dated 28.10.1980. However, representations of the petitioners were rejected on the ground that they were not appointed as Masters/Mistresses through the Employment Exchange and services of only those ad hoc employees can regularised who were taken through the Employment Exchange. This action of the government rejecting the representation of the petitioners was again challenged by the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 4841 of 1982. In response to the notice issued in the said writ petition, the State through their counsel, made a statement to the following effect :-

(3.) In view of this order, the order dated 3.6.1982 vide which the representation of the petitioners was rejected was set aside and the case of regularisation of the petitioners was to be decided by the State in terms of earlier judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4946 of 1978. Two other circular letters dated 22.10.1982 and 29.3.1985 were issued by the State of Punjab to the effect that those employees who have completed one year ad hoc service on 22.10.1982 and 1.4.1985, their services be regularised. Despite direction in Civil Writ Petition No. 4946 of 1978 and circular letters dated 28.10.1982, 22.10.1982 and 29.3.1985, the services of the petitioners who had completed one year service on 30.9.1980 were not regularised. Being aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the State of Punjab, this third writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for a direction that their services be regularised with effect from 1.10.1980 when they completed more than one year service as ad hoc Masters/Mistresses. The respondents have taken a position that they have already recommended the case of the petitioners for being regularised in pursuance of the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 4946 of 1978 as well as in pursuance of circular letters dated 28.10.1980, 22.10.1982 and 29.3.1985 and they are awaiting orders from the competent authorities. It worthwhile to mention here that the services of some other employees who had completed one year service on 22.12.1982 and 1.4.1985 have already been regularised whereas services of the petitioners who had completed one year service as ad hoc employees on 1.10.1980 have not been regularised. It is very unfortunate that the petitioners had to come to this Court third time for seeking the same direction. Admittedly the petitioners improved their qualifications and were thus appointed as Masters Mistresses as far back as 15.11.1978 i.e. more than 12 years back but their services have not been regularised despite the decision taken by the government vide circular letters dated 28.10.1980, 22.10.1982 and 29.3.1985. It is expected from the respondents that once a decision is taken by them to regularise the ad hoc employees who have completed one year of service, then they should have implemented the orders immediately and not to allow the petitioners to wait for such a long time. Consequently this writ petition is allowed with costs. The respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioners with effect from 1.10.1980 in view of order, Annexure P-4 dated 28.10.1980 within three months from today.