GULPHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order proposes to dispose of two identical writ petitions bearing C.W.P. No. 12600 of 1993 (Gulphan Singh v. State of Haryana and others) and C.W.P. No. 2741 of 1994 (Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and another). The facts of both these cases are similar and issues canvassed in both the writ petitions are also identical. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being culled out from C.W.P. No. 12600 of 1993. The facts of the case are hardly in dispute. Petitioner was appointed as Veterinary Compounder, which came to be re-designated as Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant (VLDA). There was no allegation of misrepresentation leveled against the petitioner. However, the educational qualification of the petitioner, i.e. Veterinary Assistant Training Course came to be derecognised by the respondent-State vide Annexure R-1 dated 7.3.1988, whereas the petitioner had been appointed earlier to this date and that too on the basis of interview conducted for the selection. Based on the derecognition of the diploma course held by the petitioner, he was sought to be removed from service vide impugned communication dated 20.8.1993 (Annexure P-4). Having been left with no other option, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and termination of the service of the petitioner was stayed till further orders, vide order dated 13.10.1993 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 25.10.1994 and stay was ordered to be continued. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others, RSJ (1950-1988) Vol 1. He further submits that there was no allegation leveled against the petitioner that he misrepresented about his qualification at any point of time. His qualification was duly recognised at the relevant point of time when he was appointed. Derecognition of the qualification, if any, would be operative only prospectively and not retrospectively. He prays for setting aside the impugned order (Annexure P-4) by allowing the present writ petition.