USHA KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Mrs. Usha Kapur was appointed as Assistant Employment Officer (Vocational Guidance) in the Directorate of Employment Punjab, Chandigarh on 23rd January, 1979, on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till a regular candidate was appointed, whichever was earlier. The recommendation for appointing her to this post, had been made by the Employment Exchange as the petitioner fulfilled the requisite qualifications prescribed in the letter of interview dated 17th February, 1978 (Annexure P. 2) and she was found in possession of Master's degree in psychology with specialisation in vocational guidance.

(2.) The petitioner continued to serve on ad hoc basis, when on 30th July, 1982 a communication was received by her from the Director, Employment Department, Punjab informing her, that when she was appointed as Assistant Employment Officer (Vocational Guidance), she was shown as a candidate belonging to the Backward Class. The communication required her to submit the documentary proof of her belonging to the Backward Class to the Director. In reply to the aforesaid communication, the petitioner on 4th August, 1982 stated that since she had never submitted any certificate of belonging to Backward Class and her appointment having been made against an unreserved post without any relaxation in favour of Backward Class/Scheduled Class, the question of furnishing any documentary proof of her belonging to Backward Class did not arise. Thereafter, there was no further exchange of correspondence either by the State Government or by the Director, Employment Department Punjab, with the petitioner, and it was suddenly on 25th March, 1986 that the order terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 31st March, 1986 (A.N.) was communicated to her. The impugned order runs as under :-

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through their pleadings and the material on the record, I am of the considered view that the impugned action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, hence, deserves to be struck down being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, when the petitioner was originally appointed on 8th January, 1979 she was appointed on ad hoc basis. She continued to serve as such for more than 7 years and it was with effect from 31st March, 1986 that her services were terminated. During this long period of 7 years the petitioner earned seven good reports, one being 'very good'. Such a continuous service and that too without any break could not be allowed to be treated as merely ad hoc and the State could not be permitted to dispense with the services of the petitioner unceremoniously by passing a simple order of termination of the service. During this long period extending to 7 years, the State Government could have easily made up its mind as to whether the services were to be retained or not. Once having come to know that the 7 annual confidential reports of the petitioner were 'good/very good' and the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications of age as well as Master's Degree in Psychology with specialisation in vocational guidance, it was the duty of the State Government to ensure that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis. The Damocle's sword could not be permitted to hang over her head for an indefinite period. Such an interim and stop-gap arrangement was neither legally permissible nor administratively conducive for the efficiency of the services. If the respondents were not satisfied with the work and conduct of the petitioner her Services should have been terminated much before the expiry of 7 years, if not immediately after the expiry of first term of ad hoc appointment; otherwise the ad hoc employment of the petitioner should have been regularised as was done by the State Government by ignoring the advice of the Public Service Commission in the case of Mrs. K. Gupta, as admitted by the State Government in para 11 sub-para (iii) of their written statement. Hence, this remissness or the part of the State Government can not be condoned by accepting their pleas that "the direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Employment Officer (V.G.) is made on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission and the Government in normal circumstances does not regularise the services of the petitioner by relaxing the service rules." In order to regularise the service of the petitioner if relaxation was found necessary to be made by the State Government, the same should have been made instead of terminating the services of the petitioner. It is precisely for such like cases that the provision for the relaxation of the Rules was made in the Punjab Employment (Class I and II) Service Rules, 1963 which regulate the conditions of service of the officers of the Punjab Employment Department.