BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Balbir Singh, Jitender Kumar, Panni Singh, Suresh Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Ranbir Singh have jointly filed this petition for issue of a direction to quash the selection and appointments of respondents No.4 to 20 who are working as Conductors in the Haryana Roadways. They have also prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to consider their case for appointment afresh.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioners is that during indefinite strike of the employees of Haryana Government which commenced from 7.12.1993, the petitioners offered themselves for service. Petitioners No. 1 to 5 were appointed on 7.12.1993 and petitioner No.6 was appointed on 14.12.1993. Many others were appointed during the strike period. After the strike was over, the employees against joined their duties. Continuance of all the persons appointed during the strike period would have caused huge financial burden on the public exchequer and, therefore, the Haryana Government framed policy for absorption of persons who had served during strike. This policy is reflected in Annexure P- 2. In accordance with Annexure P-2 all the persons who had served during the strike period were required to be interviewed by a screening committee. The petitioners were also entitled to be called for such interview, the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Additional Transport Commissioner held interviews without intimation to the petitioners who were working at Sub Deport, Loharu. On the recommendation of the screening committee a list of 17 candidates (Annexure P-3) was notified and these candidates have been sent for training as a pre-lude to their regular appointments. The Petitioner have questioned the action of the selection committee by alleging that they had not been given any opportunity or notice to appear in the interview and without considering their cases, the committee has arbitrarily selected respondents No.4 to 20. Another ground of challenge is that the candidates like Dharmpal, Dalbir and Narinder Kumar have been included in the list of selected candidates, even they did not appear in the interview, this, according to the petitioner, has happened because of political influence brought by these candidates.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, it has been admitted that the petitioners and a large number of other persons were engaged during the strike period. The respondents have, however, stated that all these candidates had been taken on duty without completing the procedure prescribed under the rules. After the strike had ended, the government constituted screening committee to regularise the service of those, who had been appointed during the strike period. All the candidates including the drivers and conductors were directed to appear before the screening committee headed by the Additional Transport Commissioner. However, 17 candidates were selected by the Committee. They were put on one month's training and, thereafter. They were appointed on contract basis. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioners did not appear before the screening committee headed by the Additional Transport Commissioner. However, 17 candidates were selected by the Committee. They were put on one month's training and, thereafter, they were appointed on contract basis. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioners did not appear before the screening committee and, therefore, they have no right to make a complaint of discrimination.