ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Director, Urban Development Department, Haryana (respondent No. 2 herein), whereby the representation of the petitioner claiming appointment on the post of Clerk in the Municipality, has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed as Octroi Clerk on contract basis on 3.1.1997 when the employees of the Municipal Committees/Municipal Councils were on strike. Since the petitioner did not perform his duties satisfactorily, therefore, vide order dated 2.2.1997 his services were dispensed with while specifying therein that his services were found unsatisfactory. It is admitted position that the petitioner had challenged the said order of his termination by filing a Civil Suit in the court of Civil judge (Jr. Division), Bhiwani. Ultimately the said suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on 24.5.2001. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani on 22.3.2002. RSA No. 2482 of 2002 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court on 12.3.2005.

(3.) After dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 2 on 15.6.2007, without disclosing the fact that the Civil Suit filed by him challenging his termination has been dismissed by the Civil Court and the said order has been upheld by this Court in R.S.A. No. 2482 of 2002, stating therein that many employees, who had worked during the strike period on ad hoc basis, were appointed on regular basis in view of the policy decision of the State Government, therefore, his claim for appointment on regular basis as Clerk in Municipal Council, Bhiwani against the vacant posts may also be considered. The said representation has been rejected vide impugned order. In the said order, it has been stated that as per the Instructions dated 13.5.1997 issued by the Government, it was decided that during the Municipal strike in 1996-97, the employees appointed on regular basis may be allowed to continue in Municipality and those appointed on ad hoc basis and daily wage basis against vacant posts, may be appointed against vacant posts on the basis of seniority. If there is no vacant post, then seniority list may be got prepared and preference may be given to appoint them against vacant posts in future. But the Government vide letter dated 24.4.2001 issued Instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners and Municipalities to give appointment to only those employees who had worked during the entire period of strike i.e. 16.12.1996 to 4.3.1997, and that too, after receiving proof of payment of salary as well as appointment letters by the competent authority. In view of the said Policy, the petitioner, who had worked only from 3.1.1997 to 2.2.1997, was not entitled for regular appointment, particularly when his services were dispensed with being unsatisfactory. Further, it has been mentioned that in the year 2006, vide letter dated 23.3.2006 the Government asked all the Deputy Commissioners to send complete record of such persons who have worked during the strike period and could not be given appointment so far. It is further mentioned that subsequently the Government issued Instructions dated 19.2.2007, whereby it was decided not to appoint any employee who had worked during the strike period. It has been stated that in view of the latest Instructions of the Government, the petitioner was not entitled for appointment on the post of Clerk against the vacant post.