RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed. Annual confidential reports of the petitioner were also produced. Counsel heard.

(2.) The petitioner who was appointed earlier on ad hoc basis in Dec., 1976, has since been regularised from Jan. 1, 1991, i.e. after the filing of this writ petition and the receipts of its notice by the respondents. The petitioner's claim is that he should be regularised with effect from the year 1980, i.e., when the Government issued the notification in this regard for the first time. From the record produced we find that the petitioner at that stage was not considered fit for regularisation because his overall performance was not good. The respondent then issued another notification dated Jan. 19,1984, to consider the cases of regularisation. The petitioner by that time had earned three good reports and one average. In the year 1978-79 his performance was rated as good so was it fated as good in 1980-81, 1982-83 and also in 1983-84. It was rated as average in the year 1981-82. Thus, the petitioner's performance within four years prior to the issuance of that notification was overall good. That being so, the petitioner should have been then considered for regularisation and should have been regularised as per that notification. That, however, was not done. The petitioner continued to represent against the inaction on the part of the respondents. He ultimately came to the court as no relief was granted to him. As noticed above, when the notice of this writ petition was issued, the respondents took a decision to regularise him with effect from Jan. 1,1991. We do not agree with the learned Additional Advocate-General that because in the year 1981-82, the petitioner's performance was rated as average, his performance with in four years of the issuance of the notification dated Jan. 19, 1984, was not to be considered as overall good. Our finding is that his performance was, in fact, overall good, during that period. That being so, the petitioner is entitled to be regularised with effect from Jan. 19,1984 i.e., from the dated of the issuance of the subsequent notification.

(3.) We only have to mention to reject the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is be rated. As a matter of fact, the petitioner ought to have been considered earlier for regularisation and should not have been compelled to come to the Court for that relief.