DROPTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which requires adjudication in this writ petition is whether the respondents are right in declining the regularisation Of service of the petitioner as Sewing Teachress on the ground that confidential reports of the petitioner were not available.

(2.) After having secured necessary qualifications for appointment as Sewing Teachress the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sewing Teachress (Craft Teachress) under the Panchayat Samitt, Shahbad with effect from 30.3.1979 where she worked upto 28.9.1982. Thereafter she worked as Sewing Teachress under the District Rural Development Agency, Kurukshetra, between 9.10.1982 to 30.6.1984 and 30.11.1984 to 31.3.1985. With effect from 3,4.1985 the petitioner was appointed as ad hoc Sewing Teachress in Panchayat Samiti Pehowa on the consolidated salary of Rs. 525/- per month. The Government of Haryana took a policy decision to regularise the services of Sewing Teachresses having experience of three years or more. In furtherance of this policy decision, circular letters dated 18.2.1983 and 4.5.1983 were issued by the Government directing all the competent authorities to take steps for regularisation of the services of Sewing Teachresses working in various Panchayat Samities. In the list prepared by the Director Woman Programme on behalf of the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana Development and Panchayat Department, name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 25. This was followed by different orders issued in favour of other persons for regularisation of their services. However, in the case of the petitioner, order for regularisation was not issued on the ground that the Lady Circle Supervisor, Kurukshetra, under whom the petitioner had worked, did not send her confidential reports. The petitioner pursued her case at different levels but could not get a satisfactory reply, after about six months, she received communications Annexures P17 and P18 rejecting her claim for regularisation on the ground that there was no confidential report of the petitioner and after such a long time the confidential report could not be written. This has led to a situation in which the petitioner continues to be an ad hoc teachress one is being paid fixed wages.

(3.) The respondents have justified their action on the ground that the petitioner was in the employment of the District Rural Development Agency, Kurukshetra, and as she did not want to go far away from District Kurukshetra, her case was not considered for regularisation of her service.