SMT. VEENA SIKKA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Veena Sikka petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/27 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for quashing the order dated 29.4.1994 (Annexure P.5) and for directions to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint her as General Foundation Course Instructor on regular basis in compliance with the judgment dated 5.10.1993 (Annexure P.4) and also in view of the fact that persons junior to the petitioner, i.e. respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in ad hoc service have been retained and made regular and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been selected by the S.S.S. Board, Haryana, on regular basis and as such she has superior right of appointment to the post of General Foundation Course Instructor than that of the ad hoc employees.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she joined her duties on 19.11.1996 in Vocational Education Institute at Kurukshetra as General Foundation Course Instructor in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 18.11.1986. Respondents No. 3 to 5, namely, Sahib Ram, Sushma Kumari and Suman Kumari, also joined on ad hoc basis like the petitioner on 29.11.1986, 4.2.1987 and 5.3.1987, respectively. In the meantime, Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (for short 'the Board') advertised the post of General Foundation Course Instructor for regular appointment. The petitioner applied and she was found suitable by the Board and her name was duly recommended to respondent No. 2 for appointment on regular basis vide memo. dated 4.7.1988. The petitioner proceeded on maternity leave with effect from 21.3.1988 when her ad hoc services were terminated arbitrarily by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.7.1988. Before the said order could be communicated to the petitioner, she approached the High Court and filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6150 of 1988 primarily on the ground that her juniors like respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and one Shiv Partap Singh were retained in service whereas her service was terminated in spite of the fact that she was found suitable by the Board. The High Court vide order dated 25.7.1988 directed the official respondents to maintain status quo as it was existing on that date. In spite of the fact that status quo was ordered by the High Court, the official respondents did not treat the petitioner in service on the ground that the termination order had been passed before the abovesaid directions were issued by the High Court. C.W.P. No. 6150 of 1988 filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide judgment dated 3.10.1988 in terms of the judgment dated 26.8.1988 passed in C.W.P. No. 72 of 1988 (Piara Singh v. State of Haryana). The grouse of the petitioner is that neither the official respondents implemented the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court nor they gave appointment to the petitioner on the basis of her selection made by the Board for appointment on regular basis. The petitioner was denied appointment on the recommendation of the Board on the pretext that some ad hoc appointees like the private respondents had already obtained stay from the High Court. The petitioner was not allowed to continue on the basis of her ad hoc service on the pretext that she had already been relieved before the passing of the order of status quo by the High Court. In this manner the petitioner has been deprived of her appointment in both ways.

(3.) The decision of the High Court in Piara Singh's case was taken to the Supreme Court in S.L.P. by the State of Haryana. The Supreme Court allowed the S.L.P. vide judgment dated 12.2.1992 and set aside the judgment of the High Court and upheld the various policy decisions taken by the State Government and thereby regularising the services of the ad hoc employees. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the ad hoc appointees had no right to continue to the detriment of the candidates duly selected for regular appointments. The petitioner alleges that in the meanwhile the Government of Haryana took a policy decision to regularise the services of those ad hoc employees who had completed two years service on 31.12.1990 (Annexure P3).