GURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall decide CWP-20333-2016 and CWP-7011-2018 as identical questions of fact and law are involved therein. For ease of disposal, facts are being extracted from CWP-20333-2016 titled as Gurinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed for quashing orders of regularization of the private respondents. In CWP-7011-2018, prayer has also been made for quashing order dtd. 14/6/2017, whereby, the services of the private respondents were confirmed post-regularization as well as for quashing of tentative seniority list dtd. 21/2/2018. If, the order of regularization is set aside, the subsequent order of confirmation shall automatically be set aside and thus, the legality and validity of the same is not being considered. It is also to be noted that there is no challenge to the legality of regularization policy dtd. 18/3/2011.

(3.) Undisputed facts which have come to light on the basis of the pleadings of the parties are that in the year 2008, CWP-12194-2008 titled as Arvind Thakur Vs. State of Punjab and others was filed for directions to the respondents to fill up the vacant posts of Deputy District Attorneys/District Attorneys/Assistant District Attorneys as the same was affecting the functioning of the subordinate Courts. Vide detailed judgment dtd. 6/5/2008, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State of Punjab to revive posts which had been abolished on account of austerity measures, review the cadre strength and create additional vacancies as the requirement of Public Prosecutors/Assistant Public Prosecutors was much in excess of the existing sanctioned posts and to appoint candidates on contractual basis till the time regular appointments were made. This direction was issued as the State had expressed its inability to make wholesale appointments in the year 2009. The State had submitted that 40% appointments would be made in the year 2009 and the remaining 60% appointments would be made in the years 2010-11. This Court permitted the State to fill up the regular posts in the staggered manner as suggested, but issued directions to make stop gap arrangements by appointing contractual employees. It also needs to be highlighted that there was a great shortfall in the availability of Assistant District Attorneys (hereinafter referred to as the ADAs). Thus, a proposal dtd. 30/6/2009 was floated for creation of more posts of ADAs. The proposal was reiterated in subsequent communications, the last of which were dtd. 27/4/2012 and 24/1/2013.