SURJIT MISREE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Surjit Misree was working as a Lecturer in English on regular basis in R.J. College, Rewari from September 7, 1974 to March 31, 1981. As per the averments of the appellant which he made in the writ petition, the R.J. College had been closed down and, therefore, he became surplus. Though, according to respondent No. 3-Nirankari Baba Gurbachan Singh Memorial College, Sohna, the petitioner had not become surplus in R.J. College but his services were terminated on account of his remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty. Be that as it may, we are not determining this point in this appeal. The appellant applied to the Deputy Director, Higher Education for absorption in any Government College/State Aided College. Since, this was not done, he filed writ petition No. 9768 of 1989. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 3-College had advertised a post of Lecturer in English. Petitioner-appellant also applied for that post and was placed at serial No. 2 in the merit list by the Selection Committee. The candidate, who was placed at serial No. 1 did not join. Therefore, petitioner-appellant moved a miscellaneous application in the writ petition that he may be absorbed by respondent No. 3-College (in fact when the writ petition was filed and miscellaneous application was made, respondent No. 3 was not a party in the writ petition). The following order was passed on the miscellaneous application on 31.8.1989:

(2.) During the pendency of this Letters Patent Appeal, respondent No. 3- College advertised the post of a Lecturer in English in The Tribune dated 30.8.1998. A miscellaneous application had been filed by the appellant that since the post is available in respondent No. 3-College, he may be absorbed against the said post. It may further be observed here that learned counsel for the petitioner has stated on instructions from his client that nobody turned up for interview for filling-up the post of Lecturer in English which was advertised on 30.8.1998 and the post is still lying vacant and has not been regularly filled.

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstances, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal by observing that let the directions given by the learned single Judge, as quoted above, be carried out by respondent No. 2 i.e. Director, Higher Education and consider the case of the appellant for absorption against the post which is stated to be lying vacant in respondent No. 3-College. We may must observe here that our aforesaid directions would not come in the way of respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the appellant for his absorption in any other College. Let these directions be carried out within a period of two months.