JAGDISH KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed on 20.6.1963 as a Social Studies Mistress on officiating basis in the Government Girls High School, Jalalabad (West) District Ferozepur. She was thereafter confirmed on this post. Since she had passed her M.A. in Punjabi the District Education Officer, Ferozepur as per his order dated 6.10.1970 (Annexure P-2 with the writ petition) appointed her as Lecturer in punjabi on adhoc/temporary basis for 6 months in Government Higher Secondary School, Rupana, District Ferozepur (now in District Faridkot). It may be mentioned that a large number of adhoc appointments were made throughout the State by the Education Department Recruitment Committee constituted in October, 1978. The State Government decided to regularise the services of those who had completed a minimum of one year's service on March 31,1977 subject to the conditions laid down in the instructions dated May 3,1977. One of the conditions was that adhoc employees to be regularised should have been recommended for employment by the Employment Exchange or their applications should have been received in response to advertisement made for filling up the post. Subsequently, a clarification was sought whether this condition would apply to such adhoc employees who had been appointed by methods other than direct recruitment. It was clarified that the condition regarding recruitment through Employment Exchange will not be applicable to such adhoc employees who were already in service and were later appointed on adhoc basis on higher posts. It is not in dispute that the petitioner continued to work as Lecturer in Punjabi on adhoc basis and since she fulfilled the requirements of the aforesaid Government instructions her services were regularised by the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab on 28.3.1979 (Annexure P-5 with the writ petition). After she had worked as a Lecturer for more than 4 years on regular basis she received a notice dated March 7,1983 from the Director, public Instructions calling upon her to show cause why the order dated 28.3.1979 by which her services had been regularised be not cancelled. It was stated in the notice that the instructions dated May 3,1977 could apply only to those adhoc employees who had been sponsored through the Employment Exchange or who had been appointed after their posts had been advertised and since this was not done in the case of the petitioner she was not entitled to be regularised in service. She was given time to file a representation within one month from the date of receipt of the notice. A detailed representation was filed by the petitioner and she brought it to the notice of the concerned officer that she was eligible for being regularised in service and that her case was fully covered by the Government instructions. By an order dated November 23,1983 the Director, Public Instructions considered the reply filed by the petitioner and found the same to be unsatisfactory and accordingly cancelled the order dated 28.3.1979 whereby the services of the petitioner had been regularised as a Lecturer. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. On the basis of an interim order passed by the Motion Bench the petitioner was not relieved from the post of Lecturer and is continuing till date.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the respondent, it is pleaded that the petitioner was not entitled to be regularised as a Lecturer because her name had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and nor was the post advertised before she was appointed. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was a conformed Mistress before she was appointed as a Lecturer on adhoc basis and, therefore, the Government instructions dated May 3,1977 did not apply to her. It is also the case of the respondents that the post against which the petitioner was regularised could only be filled by promotion and only those could be regularised who were drawing salary less than Rs. 290/-.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and am of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as an ad hoc Lecturer since 6.10.1970 and had completed more than one year of service when the instructions dated May 3,1977 were issued. It is also true that one of the conditions mentioned in the Government instructions was that the name of the ad hoc employee should have been recommended by the Employment Exchange for appointment or the post against which he/she was appointed should have been advertised before it was filled. This condition, however, was not applicable in the case of the petitioner as per the clarification given by the State Government in January,1979. Since she was eligible and had more than one year of ad hoc service to her credit her services were rightly regularised on 28.3.1979. The Director, Public Instructions did not properly appreciate the Government instructions and misdirected himself in cancelling the order regularising the services of the petitioner.