PUSHPA LATA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as teacher on ad hoc basis in the year 1966. On 29th January, 1973 the State Government issued instructions (Annexure P-1) to the effect that the cases of all the ad hoc employees who had completed a minimum of one year service on 1st January, 1973 and fulfill other conditions specified in those instruction, should be considered for regularisation. It was further specified in these instructions that the process of regularisation should be completed with one month of the insurance of the said instructions. According to the petitioner, she fulfilled the conditions as laid down in Annexure P-1 and on that account her case was forwarded to respondent No. 2 - the Direction of Public Instructions Punjab who undisputably was the appointing authority of the petitioner for such regularisation but to her misfortune, before the said respondent could pass the requisite order, she was relieved of the post by the Headmaster of the School on 15th March, 1973. Later, however, respondent No. 2, vide his memo No. 7/63-74-1(2)-1633-1, dated 28.10.75/10.11.75 had ordered her appointment on regular basis. A reference to this order of respondent No. 2 is contained in Annexure P-6 a letter dated 21st November, 1975, from the District Education Officer, Bhatinda to the petitioner asking her to reach the office of the Circle Education Officer, Nabha on 2nd December, 1975 at 9-30 a.m. to collect the letter of appointment. In this communication, she of course, was required to produce certain documents/certificates before the Circle Education Officer. Her assertion further is that when she went to the Circle Education Officer (respondent No.3) to collect the aforesaid order of appointment she was informed that since she had been out of employment for more than six months after 15th May, 1973 she could not be given the order of appointment. It may be pointed out here that this assertion on behalf of the petitioner has not been denied or refuted in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4 by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions (Schools) Punjab. Instead, in reply to it, it has been stated in para 15 of the same that the case of the petitioner was not covered by instructions Annexure P-1. It is on the basis of these facts that she claims that she should be treated to have been appointed as a teacher on regular basis in terms of Annexure P-1.

(2.) Though the original order of the D.P.I. referred to in Annexure P-6 has been made a part of the paper-book or produced before me, yet it is not disputed either in the return or even now that the D.P.I. had passed an order appointing the petitioner on regular basis. In view of that there is no apparent reason as to why the petitioner should not be taken to have been appointed on regular basis atleast with effect from the date of the passing of this order by the D.P.I. i.e. the 10th November, 1975.

(3.) Mr. Brar, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-authorities however, contends that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite conditions laid down in the Government policy decision (Annexure P-1) and, therefore, has not rightly been regularised in service.