POONAM SETIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the letter/order, dtd. 21/10/2020, Annexure P-12, whereby the second respondent has directed all the Principals of Government colleges, including the third respondent, to disengage services of petitioner with immediate effect in terms of Policy dtd. 4/3/2020, Annexure P-8.

(2.) As per facts on record, in brief, the petitioner was initially engaged as ineligible Extension Lecturer in the respondent College on 11/8/2014, and continued working as such upto 12/4/2016. Vide the order of same date, she was relieved from service. It was challenged by filing CWP No. 14463 of 2016, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 15/2/2018, in terms of directions issued in CWP No. 16975 of 2014, MAMTA Annexure P-3, to adjust the petitioner from the next academic session in case there was workload for the post and no eligible candidate was available. In compliance of the directions, she was allowed to rejoin the College on 4/4/2019, and worked therein till 24/10/2020. In view of Policy for engagement of eligible Extension Lecturers, dtd. 4/3/2020, the petitioner was relieved from service vide impugned order dtd. 24/10/2020, Annexure P-13, which was challenged by her by filing the instant petition. And vide interim order dtd. 11/2/2021, interim directions were issued in the same terms as issued in CWP No.179 of 2021, which read as under: To be listed along with CWP-19035-2020. Interim observations in terms of the order dtd. 27/11/2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP-19035-2020 would hold good even qua the present petitioners. Finally, this matter was clubbed with CWP No. 14660 of 2020 titled Lalita Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others, in which following interim directions had been issued:

(3.) Learned State counsel contends that being ineligible the petitioner has no right to continue in service. She does not possess the prescribed minimum qualification of National Eligibility Test (NET) or Ph.D, as specifically averred in the written statement; a fact which remains undisputed. It is further contended that the Policy for engagement of eligible Extension Lecturers dtd. 4/3/2020, was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dtd. 22/9/2020, passed in CWP No. 6968 of 2020 titled Suman Devi and others v. State of Haryana and others. The Policy requires that ineligible Extension Lecturers are to be disengaged from service, except where interim orders have been granted in their favour by this Court. This was conveyed to the Colleges vide impugned office memo dtd. 21/10/2020, for relieving the ineligible Extension Lecturers. It has also been contended that the connected petitions, CWP No.179 of 2021, CWP No. 19035 of 2020, have already been decided by this Court along with CWP No. 15379 of 2020 titled Manisha Yadav v. State of Haryana and others, whereby relying upon the directions issued by the Division Bench in Suman Devi case ibid disengagement of the petitioners therein in terms of Policy dtd. 4/3/2020 on account of being ineligible has been upheld. Accordingly, the petitioner has no right to continue in service.