BALVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these four cases were appointed as Pump Operators on December 1, 1988, November 8,1989, June 3, 1991 and July 1, 1991 respectively. In March/April 1996, the respondent-department issued a notice to all the petitioners informing them that they do not fulfil the academic and technical qualifications for the posts of Pump Operators. Consequently, they were called upon to indicate if they were willing to work on a lower posts. A copy of this notice has been produced on record as Annexure P.4 in Civil Writ Petition No.7809 of 1996. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed these four cases.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that complete particulars regarding academic and technical qualifications had been duly disclosed to the respondents at the time of entry into service. These facts had been verified by seeing the original certificates. The petitioners have worked for the last so many years. There is no. complaint against their performance. Consequendy, the action of the respondents in proposing to terminate dieir services as Pump Operators and in requiring them to work on a lower posts, is wholly arbitrary and illegal. On the other hand, Mr. Masih, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioners do not fulfil the qualifications prescribed in the rules, they have no right to continue on the posts of Pump Operators.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties, we find that the recruitment to the post of Pump Operator is governed by the provisions of the rules called 'The Punjab PWD Regular Work- charged Establishment (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1988. In these rules, it has been provided that a person should possess the qualification of Matriculation with two years ITI course so as to be eligible for appointment to the post of Pump Operator. However, learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the petitioners do not belong to the work-charged establishment. In this situation, it cannot be said that they are governed by the provisions of 1988 rules. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the petitioners had not mis-stated any facts at the time of their entry into service. They had disclosed their qualifications. Their work and performance are admittedly satisfactory. No adverse report has been communicated to any one. In Bhagwati Prasad versus Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 1 RSJ 255, dieir Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with a similar situation were pleased to observe that "once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. In our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondent in the circumstances would be sufficient for confirmation". In the present case, the petitioners have admittedly worked for a period from 4 years 10 months to more than seven years. Since they have acquired sufficient experience on these posts and their performance has been satisfactory, it would be 'hard and harsh' to terminate the services of these petitioners. Mr. Masih has pointed out to us a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6162 of 1995 (Gurcharan Singfi Kahlon & Ors. versus State of Punjab and another). The question that arose for consideration of the Bench in this case was regarding the claim made by "973 persons who were employed as Pump Operator, mali-cum-chowkidar, Fitter Helper, Sewerman, Beldar, Ledger Keeper .... for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to pay them the minimum of regular pay scale in accordance with the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.... embodied in Article 39(d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India". While granting the relief to the petitioners, it was observed by their Lordships that the order "shall not entitle the petitioners to claim regularisation of services". Their Lordships were further pleased to clarify that "it would be open to the respondents to dispense with the services of those employees who do not fulfil the qualifications but while doing so, the respondents shall comply with the requirements of the statutory provisions like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."