SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made by the petitioners is for issuance of a writ in She nature of certiorari for quashing the condition restricting their tenure to a period of three years by the appointment letter dated 8.6.2003 (Annexure P.2). It is appropriate to mention that respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement through Haryana Public Service Commission being advertisement No. 8 for filling up the tenure posts of Senior Resident and Demonstrator, Class I! for a fixed, period of three years at PGIMS (Denial College), Rohtak. The petitioners were selected and appointed for a period of three years and accordingly appointment letter was issued on 8.6.2003 (Annexure P.2). In the appointment letter Clause 2 specifically provided as under:

(2.) It is further pointed out that in 2004 again the tenure posts were advertised in the same manner and some candidates were selected and appointed who joined in July, 2004. A similar condition for three years' tenure has been incorporated in their letters of appointment as well. It is suggested that those who have joined later would continue after the petitioner have left. The petitioners have filed representation with the prayer that they may be allowed to continue till regular recruitment is made,

(3.) Mr. R.K. Malik, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that once appointment has been made through proper channel then such like condition restricting the tenure to three years cannot be incorporated in the appointment letter. According to the learned Counsel such a condition would be unconstitutional as has been held by two Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Polu Ram v. State of Haryana 1998(4) R.S.J. 152 and Surinder Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2000(3) R.S.J. 499. Learned Counsel has insisted that the petitioners be permitted to continue till the appointment is made on regular basis because permitting the petitioner to continue only for three years would result into unconscionable and inequitable results as the persons who were appointed in 2004 would be permitted to continue who are junior to the petitioners. The learned Counsel has maintained that it would result into exploitation by the respondents.