SOM DATT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the fact that almost identical reliefs have been claimed in all these petitions they are being decided by a common order.

(2.) Som Dutt, who is petitioner in CWP No. 11837 of 1993, joined service as Laboratory Attendant on 23.9.1966. Presently he is working as Senior Laboratory Attendant. During his service, the petitioner has improved his academic qualification with the permission of the departmental authorities. He has passed Prabhakar, O.T. and B.A. examinations. On 19.8.1974, he was appointed as Hindi teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 170-350 and in that capacity he has served in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Sector 3, Talwara, district Hoshiarpur, uptill 27.1.1976 and again from 31.1.1976 to 8.6.1976. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted back as Senior Laboratory Attendant. According to the petitioner, despite his posting as Senior Laboratory Attendant, the respondents have taken the work of Hindi Teacher from him and for the last about 26 months he has performed the duties of Hindi Teacher. By placing reliance on government Memo No. 2561-41E (1) 77 dated 11.3.1978, the petitioner has pleaded that he has a right to be appointed on the post of Teacher in view of the improvement in his academic qualifications, He has also made reference to a large number of orders issued by respondent No. 2 for appointment of Clerks and other subordinate staff to the posts of Teachers on the basis of their improved qualifications. Reference has also been made by the petitioner to the notification dated 8.9.1987 issued by the President of India under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for validation of the appointment of Masters and Mistresses made from amongst ministerial employees during the years 1974 and 1975. He has also relied on an order dated 20.7.1993 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3669 of 1992 and has pleaded that in view of his long experience of teaching, he has acquired a right to be appointed on the post of Teacher.

(3.) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner belongs to non-teaching cadre and his service conditions are governed by he Punjab Education Department (Subordinate Officers) Clerical Rules, 1941 and that he can have no claim to be appointed as Teacher. Though the respondents have admitted the averments made by the petitioner that he had served as Hindi Teacher from 19.8.1974 to 21.1.1976 and again from 30.1.1976 to 8.6.1976, they have further pleaded that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Teacher was purely ad hoc and for a specified period. Case of the respondents is that on the basis of such stop-gap arrangement, no right has accrued in favour of the petitioner to be appointed as a Teacher. Reference has also been made by the respondents to the amendment made in the requirements of qualifications for the posts of Hindi/Punjabi Teacher w.e.f 1.1.1986 and it has been pleaded by them that the petitioner does not fulfil the existing qualifications prescribed for appointment on the post of Teacher.