VIVEK POULSATY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 10.2.2006 (P-13) passed by the District Education Officer, Kurukshetra - respondent No. 3, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner to reinstate him in service. A further prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to advertise the post of Sanskrit teacher and to fill up the same forthwith as per the direction issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 16749 of 1999, dated 27.11.2001 (P-4), has been sought with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on contractual basis on the post of Sanskrit teacher on the ground that several vacancies were available in various schools. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.1997, the petitioner was given appointment on contractual basis on the consolidated salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month for a limited period of 89 days or till joining of a regular candidate. Accordingly, he joined as Sanskrit teacher at Government High School, Malikpur, District Kurukshetra. The condition of contractual appointment of 89 days at a consolidated salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month was challenged in a bunch of petitions including C.W.P. No. 18835 of 1997. Those petitions were allowed on 17.4.1998.

(2.) The petitioner is stated to have worked upto 30.4.1998. He was relieved from service on account of the fact that a person appointed on regular basis, namely, Shri Parmod Kumar had joined, while retaining others who were also engaged on contractual basis. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 16749 of 1999, which was disposed of on 27.11.2001 with a direction to the respondents that in case the private respondents were found to be junior to the petitioner then their services to be terminated forthwith, the consequential vacancies were required to be advertised and filled up in accordance with the Rules. It is claimed that the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 11.8.2004 (P-12) requiring the respondents to comply with the order dated 27.11.2001 (P-4) passed in C.W.P. No. 16749 of 1999.

(3.) On account of apathy of the respondents, the petitioner is stated to have filed another C.W.P. No. 17202 of 2004 seeking a direction to the respondents to advertise and fill up the post of Sanskrit teacher as per the directions issued by this Court on 27.11.2001 in C.W.P. No. 16749 of 1999. Again the same relief was sought by the petitioner to reinstate him in service on contractual basis on the ground that several vacancies were available, especially when a number of other persons have been appointed in the meanwhile. The writ petition again was disposed of on 20.10.2005 directing the respondents to reconsider the matter and take a decision within a period of four months. The District Education Officer respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on 10.2.2006 by passing a detailed order (P-13) by observing as under:-