STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MINI CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in these two appeals were recruited as part-time Lecturers. They were being paid Rs. 40/- per hour for the theory period and Rs. 15/- for practical periods subject to a maximum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. They approached this Court through two separate writ petitions with a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Department to regularise their services. They also prayed that the respondents may not terminate their services till regular recruitment was made. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the petitions in terms of the directions given vide order dated May 27, 1991, in Civil Writ petition No. 16753 of 1990. By this order, it was inter alia directed that "the State Government shall not terminate or dispense with the services of the petitioners till such time (as) the vacancies are filled up on regular basis in accordance with the rules" and that "the State Government shall pay to the part-time lecturers like the petitioners a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per month with effect from the date these petitions were filed---." Aggrieved by these judgments the State of Punjab etc. have filed these two letters patent appeals.

(2.) Mrs. Tuli who appears for the appellants contends that the recruitment to the posts of Lecturers is governed by the provisions of the statutory rules and that the respondents having not been recruited in accordance with the rules, the learned Single Judge had erred in directing that their services shall not be terminated.

(3.) We are unable to accept this contention. Learned counsel concedes that there is no provision for the posts of Part-Time Lecturers in the service rules. That being so, the recruitment is not governed by any Rules. Still the provision of Article 16 would apply. However, nothing has been pointed out to show that at the time of the appointment of the respondents, the claims of other eligible candidates had not been considered. In any event, the State cannot take advantage of its own wrong. The directions given by the learned Single Judge were only of an interim nature. These were just and fair. Nothing has been produced to show that the performance of the respondents was not good. We find no infirmity in the directions given by the learned Single Judge so as to call for any interference in these appeals.