RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is one among the large number of persons who had rendered service in the Haryana Roadways Department during Dec., 1993 when the existing employees had resorted to strike and made an attempt to paralyse and work of the department. In order to recognise the services rendered by the persons like the petitioner during the strike period and to give reward to them, the Government of Haryana framed policy for appointment of those who had served the Government during strike by the employees of the department. In furtherance of this policy the respondent No. 2 issued circulars to the General Managers and the competent authorities to prepare the lists of eligible persons, who had served the Government during the strike period for appointment/adjustment/absorption against the regular posts. The petitioner says that instead of giving him appointment on regular basis, the respondent No. 4 gave him job as a daily wager and that too was discontinued in April, 19%. The petitioner has stated that one Shri Pardeep Kumar who had served for a lesser period than him has been adjusted under the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal, but his case has not been considered for appointment on regular basis and in this manner, the respondents have discriminated him.

(2.) The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioner did not acquire any right on the basis of service rendered by him during the strike period. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed in regular pay scale because he does not fulfil the conditions incorporated in the policy framed by the Government. Appointment Pardeep Kumar has been justified on the ground that the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal passed order appointing Pardeep Kumar against the available vacant post.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which a mandamus should be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a particular post on regular basis because it has not been shown to the Court that how many persons who had served the Government during the strike are still awaiting their chance for absorption/appointment in the service of the y Government against the regular posts. It is also not clear whether the policy framed by the Government immediately after the cessation of the strike postulates appointment of persons like the petitioner against all future vacancies. A large number of writ petitions have been filed by persons like the petitioners for issuance of direction to the respondents to issue appointment order in terms of the Government Policy. Some such petitions may have been allowed by the High Court directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners. However, we feel that giving of direction in one of the other case may lead to serious anomaly because other more qualified and eligible persons may not have been able to approach the court for issuance of similar directions. However, there does not appear to be any justification why the candidature of other persons who are more qualified and suitable and who x may be senior to the petitioner should be deprived of the right to be considered for employment against the regular post as per the policy of the Government. We, therefore, deem it proper to direct the respondents to prepare a list of all those persons who had worked during the strike and who have sought employment in terms of Government Policy and to give employment strictly in the order of priority keeping in view their eligibility and suitability.