HARMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No.1782 of 1988 and 5349 of 1987.

(2.) Petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.1782 of 1988 were employees of Public High School, Himmatpur Dhanoa, which was privately managed school. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Clerk on 18.2.1982. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Laboratory Assistant on 23.12.1987, and petitioner No.3 was appointed as Director, Physical Education, on 5.2.1984. Petitioner No.4 was appointed as Giani Teacher on 23.12.1983. Petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.5349 of 1987 was appointed as Drawing Teacher in the aforesaid school on the basis of resolution passed by Managing Committee on 10.10.1982. Deputy Director (Education), Punjab, vide his Memo No.919-6/51-82SS(1), dated 9.4.1986 made a recommendation as directed by the Education Minister that the school be taken over as it was, meaning thereby that all staff working in the school was to be absorbed. Pursuant to this taking over, recommendation was made for sanctioning one post of Headmaster, 13 posts of Masters/Mistresses, one post of D.P.E., six posts of C. & V. Teachers, one post of J.B.T. Teacher, two posts of Clerks, one post of Librarian, two posts of Laboratory Assistant and five posts of Class-IV. However, the Government sanctioned only one post of Headmaster, 11 posts of Masters/Mistresses, four posts of C. & V. Teachers, one post of Clerk, one post of Laboratory Assistant and four posts of Class-IV. Sanction was subject to the condition that the staff appointed against the newly created post fulfills the qualifications/experience, etc. Posts sanctioned were also strictly according to the norms fixed by the Government. Because of sanctioning of less number of posts, petitioners could not be absorbed. The grievance made by the petitioners in the writ petitions is that on taking over of the school by the Government petitioners were entitled to be absorbed. Thus, they have termed the action of the Government as arbitrary and discriminatory.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petitions. It has come in the written statements of respondents 1 to 3 that Government sanctioned the posts after looking into the requirement of the institution, i.e. number of students in the school and number of periods to be taught by the teachers. The Government has taken over services of the staff according to seniority in their respective categories. No junior person to the petitioners has been retained and thus, grievance of the petitioners that action of the respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory cannot be accepted.