BALJIT SINGH SUDAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner (now represented by his legal representatives) seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order Annexure P- 5, dated 16.10.2006, and the communication Annexure P-6, dated 23.11.2006, both 'emanating' from the 3rd respondent herein, i.e. the District Education Officer, Yamuna Nagar. By the order dated 16.10.2006, the petitioners' claim to 'regularise' him in service, as a Social Studies Master, was rejected on the ground that he did not have English as a subject in the B.A. Examination, making the order conditional to any Court orders that the petitioner had obtained. The communication, Annexure P-6, simply conveys the aforesaid order to the petitioner. A 'consequential' writ of mandamus is also prayed for, directing the respondents to 'regularise' the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2003, as was done in the case of persons stated to be similarly situated, pursuant to the policy of the same date. Yet further, it has also been prayed in the writ petition that the respondents be restrained from taking any action against the petitioner and that he be allowed to continue in service on the post of Social Studies Master.

(2.) As per the petition, the petitioner possesses a graduate degree obtained from the University of Bombay in the year 1989, after having undergone a 3 year integrated degree course examination, in the English medium. Thereafter he obtained a post-graduate degree in History in the year 1991, again in the English medium, from the same University; and thereafter a B.Ed. degree from the same University, (in the English medium), in the year 1996.

(3.) Armed with the aforesaid degrees, having earlier passed the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination in the year 1986 from the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Education, with 54.83% marks, he responded to an advertisement dated 19.08.1997, issued by the respondent State of Haryana in its Education Department, inviting applications from candidates wishing to be considered to be appointed as S.S. Masters. Upon being selected, he was issued an appointment letter dated 20.10.1997, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-2. Though it is not stated at that stage in the writ petition, a perusal of the appointment letter shows that it was a contractual appointment for a limited period of 89 days, stating therein that the contract could also be terminated at any time without notice. However, it is stated in the petition that the petitioner having been appointed as per the aforesaid terms and conditions, against a regular sanctioned post, the action of the Government in limiting the appointment to 89 days, was challenged before this Court in a bunch of writ petitions, the lead case being Polu Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors, with the said writ petitions having been allowed by this Court, thereby quashing the said condition of limiting the appointment to a period of 89 days, further directing that the selected candidates would be allowed to continue till the posts were filled up by 'regular selection' and that they would also be entitled to the pay scale as prescribed for the post to which they had been appointed.