DEVINDER SINGH LAMBA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find that any case for interference is made out. The petitioner was appointed against a leave vacancy, which, according to the petitioner, was to last upto June 5, 1997. However, the appointment was given to the petitioner w.e.f. January 13, 1997, to March 15, 1997. The argument is that since the leave vacancy is to last upto June 5, 1997, the petitioner has inherent right to have an appointment in the leave vacancy upto the date the leave vacancy is to exist. The appointment upto June 5, 1997, has been denied by the management on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government dated September 25, 1990, copy Annexure P-4. According to these instructions, a leave vacancy can be filled by a substitute during the period from August 1, 1997 to March 15, 1997, but if the leave vacancy is in a subject in which there is only one Lecturer, then the appointment can be upto March 31, 1997. Further, it is mentioned in the instructions that the Lecturer so appointed against the leave vacancy would be relieved on March 15 or March 31 as the case may be and if the leave vacancy is for a longer period and is continued in the next session, then the Lecturer so selected would be allowed to continue in the same post from August 1 in the same year (i.e. in the next session), but permission to that effect would have to be obtained from the Director of Public Instructions.

(2.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case the appointment is to last for a longer period, then the management cannot deprive the incumbent so appointed the benefit of continuing in service and getting the pay between the period March 15/March 31, as the case may be, upto July 31 of the same year. In support of his contention, he has cited Rattan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 4 SCT 202. It may be observed that the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevance to the facts and the point arising in the present writ petition. The judgment of the Supreme Court deprecated the policy of the College-Managements where a Teacher was appointed for the Session and he was relieved before the summer vacations and after the summer vacations, the person was again appointed depriving such an incumbent of the pay of the period of summer vacations. In the present case, the point is whether in a leave vacancy where some incumbent is holding a lien and is likely to come back, can another person be asked to continue in service even for the period when the services are not required inasmuch as the session comes to an end and till the start of next session, no teaching classes are to be held. In the present case, it would be seen that the session in the Colleges normally comes to an end by March 31 in every year and the next session commences about August 1 of that year. It is for this reason that a person appointed in the leave vacancy is not allowed to continue by the instructions of the Government for the period when there are actually no classes to be taken. We are of the view that such instructions would save the Management and the Government of the pay and other benefits for the same period because for such period the incumbent who has gone on leave has the right to get all the benefits according to Rules as if he is in actual service. Consequently, we do not find that there is anything wrong in the Government instructions or in the appointment to the petitioner upto March 15, 1997.

(3.) Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in any case, the petitioner had the right to continue upto March 31, 1997, as the leave vacancy is in such a subject where there is only one lecturer against which the petitioner has been appointed. If that is so, the petitioner may make necessary representation in that regard to the management and the management would consider the same keeping in view the instructions dated September 25, 1990, Copy Annexure P-4.