JAI BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays that the order dated February 5, 1980 a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition, be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider his case for regularisation in accordnace with the instructions issued vide letter dated July 1, 1980. A copy of these instructions has been produced as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition. A few facts which are relevant for the decision of the case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The teachers in Haryana had remained on strike from February 12, 1973 to March 9, 1973. In order to meet the ensuing situation, the department had recruited teachers without resorting to any process of selection. The petitioner was one of the persons who were appointed during the period of strike on March 7, 1973. However he had also resorted to strike and, consequently, on the very next day viz. March 8, 1973 his services were terminated. On March 9, 1973, the strike was called off. The petitioner alleges that he reported for duty after the strike had been called off but not allowed to join. After the strike was over, the State Government decided that the teachers who were working on ad hoc basis and whose services had been terminated on account of resorting to strike be also taken back. The petitioner alleges that instructions were issued in this behalf on August 16, 1977. He was ''reinstated on 23.3.1978 in G.H. Sadayaana.'' He joined soon after receiving the ''reinstatement letter''. Thereupon he was treated as a stipendiary Teacher. In December 1978, the Government took a decision to regularise the services of all stipendiary Teachers. A copy of the letter issued by the Government in this behalf has been attached as Annexure P2 with the writ petition. On the basis of this decision, the services of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f. January 1, 1979. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. Certain persons were aggrieved. They, consequently, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 1979 in this court. When this writ petition came up for hearing, the counsel for the respondents gave an undertaking inter alia to the effect that any teacher ''who was employed for a short period during the strike but was relieved of his post after the coming to an end of the strike and was re- employed not as a result of notional break but otherwise, then he would not be treated as stipendiary teacher and would be treated only as an ordinary ad hoc teacher.'' Various other stipulations were also made in this undertaking. In view of the undertaking given on behalf of the respondents, the petitioners did not press the writ petition. It was, accordingly, disposed of vide Order dated August 28, 1979. Thereafter, the State Government issued a letter dated February 5, 1980 directing that the services of the teachers covered by the afore-mentioned part of the undertaking be de- regularised. It was, however, provided that they be retained in service as ad hoc teachers. The petitioner alleges that in pursuance of these instructions, respondent No. 2 issued orders for the de-regularisation of his services. The petitioner as well as various other persons approached this Court, through different writ petitions. The petitioner had filed CWP No. 1779 of 1980. All these petitions had come up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on July 30, 1980. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the Government had taken a decision as contained in memo No. 14/27-80-Edu.III(4) dated July 1, 1980 in pursuance of which the cases of various persons for regularisation shall be considered. This memo is on file as Annexure P-6. Mr. R.K. Malik states that according to this decision of July 1, 1980, the services of such teachers as had completed two years of services on December 31, 1979, were to be regularised with effect from January 1, 1980. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it was pointed out that he as well as 23 other teachers and 16 masters were not qualified for regularisation. It was stated that their claim shall be considered on merit. A copy of this decision has been produced on record as Annexure P-5. According to it, the services of the teachers who were in position on December 31, 1979 and had completed two years service upto the said date were entitled to be considered for regularisation w.e.f. January 1, 1980. On March 3, 1981, the Director of Public Instructions issued a letter indicating that teachers who had not completed two years of service upto December 31, 1979 would be treated as ordinary ad hoc teachers. The petitioner has not produced a copy of this letter. According to him, the respondents were contemplating the termination of his services. Consequently, he filed this petition with the complaint that the action of the respondents in threatening termination of his services as well as the order of de-regularisation are illegal, unjust and unfair. As already noticed, the petitioner prays that the order of de- regularisation be quashed and that the respondents be directed to consider his claim for regularisation in accordance with the circular letter dated July 1, 1980.

(3.) The Motion Bench admitted that writ petition and granted copy of termination to the petitioner. Having got the stay, the petitioner has continued in service for the last about 15 years.