AJIT KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Earlier this writ petition was filed by two persons namely Shri Ajit Kumar Yadav and Shri Veer Singh in the year 1990 against the State of Haryana and others, fully described in the head-note of the writ petition, and a writ in the nature of mandamus was prayed for regularisation of services of both the petitioners and they also claimed parity in the pay on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Yet during the pendency of this writ petition, Shri Veer Singh, petitioner No. 2, was dismissed from service vide order dated 15.12.1992 on account of embezzlement of some amount of the Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) i.e. respondent No. 2, therefore, the writ of petitioner No. 2 was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 16.2.1994 and now I have to consider only the case of petitioner No. 1 Shri Ajit Kumar Yadav, who, according to him, was appointed by respondent No. 2 as Counter Incharge Apprenticeship on 9.12.1987. There was a condition in the letter that the petitioner was to be paid stipend @ Rs. 230/- per month during the first year, Rs. 260/- per month in the second year and Rs. 300/- per month in the third year of apprenticeship. Petitioner No. 1 joined as Counter Incharge on 14.12.1987. Now his case is that he is working as Counter Incharge Trainee under the control of the Corporation. He requested the Corporation for regularisation of his services through various representations. His name was recommended for regularisation but no action has been taken so far. It is also the case of the petitioner that his services are to be regularised as per the policy decision of the State Government. It is also the grouse of the petitioner that he is being deprived equal pay for equal work, therefore, he is entitled to a regular scale of Rs. 1200-2040.

(2.) The notice of the writ petition was given up the respondents. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. The stand of these respondents is that the petitioner does to posses the requisite qualifications i.e. diploma from Catering Institute required for the post of Counter Incharge as he has done Post Graduate Diploma in Tourism and Hotel Management from the University which is not considered to be recognised for this purpose. Thus the petitioner No. 1 has no locus standi to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. On merits, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed as Counter Incharge apprenticeship on fixed emoluments which were revised from time to time, but so far as the case of regularisation is concerned he does not fulfil the requisite qualifications for regular appointment as he does not have the Diploma in Hotel Management Catering and Nutrition from Haryana Institute of Catering and Hotel Management, Panipat or any other recognised Institute for this purpose. The Post Graduate Diploma in Tourism and Hotel Management from Kurukshetra or Rajasthan Universities is not a prescribed qualification. The case of the petitioner for regularisation could not be accepted for want of having requisite qualifications for the purpose. Moreover, the petitioner was initially appointed as Counter Incharge Apprentice and subsequently he was appointed as Counter Incharge Trainee and his period of training was extended from time to time. No promise of regularisation of services was given. With this broad defence, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.