DARSHAN SINGH Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATIALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dtd. 4/10/2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, whereby, reference has been answered against the petitioner - workman to the effect that the termination of services of the petitioner is legal and justified.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the Chairman of the Market Committee, Samana, in anticipation of approval from the Market Committee, appointed Darshan Singh son of Mukand Singh - petitioner on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 8/5/1987 (Annexure P-5) . The said appointment was approved vide resolution dtd. 12/5/1987 by the Market Committee, Samana, by creation of a temporary post. He continued as such despite there being a note given by the Secretary, Market Committee, Samana that there was a similar matter pending before the High Court and it is after that only, the adjustment of the petitioner be made. Despite that, Chairman of the Market Committee has proceeded to appoint him as an Auction Recorder. His services were regularized vide resolution dtd. 21/2/1990 (Ex.M-14) w.e.f. 21/5/1989. The President of the Board approved the post of Auction Recorder on temporary basis in the pay-scale for the financial year 1987-88 in anticipation of the resolution of the Market Committee, Samana.

(3.) The case which was pending before this court was CWP No.6813-A of 1986, titled as 'Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Punjab State Agri. Marketing Board and others', wherein, challenge was to the appointments of Sheesha Singh and Harinder Singh, who were also appointed in the year 1987 as Auction Recorders. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dtd. 11/1/1996 (Annexure P-2) and the selection and appointment of respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. Harinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh and Sheesha Singh son of Phulla Singh were set aside. It would not be out of way to mention here that Harinder Singh had expired and therefore, the Court did not proceed to further go into the details of his case, however, challenge to the appointment of Sheesha Singh was considered and decided by holding that the appointment could not have been made by promotion of the said person as he was a class-IV employee, whereas, Clerks, who are class-III employees, were not even considered for appointment to the post of Auction Recorder. Because of the non- consideration of the claim of any of the persons for appointment to the post of Auction Recorder, the same could not be sustained. The Court had further proceeded to hold that even if, for the sake of exemption, the Competent Authority wanted to fill the post by direct recruitment, it was incumbent upon them either to advertise the post or to ask applications from various eligible persons, which was also not done apart from the fact that the vacancies were never notified to the Employment Exchange. The appointments were made for extraneous consideration in an illegal manner and thus, in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.