DILBAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts relevant to the decision of these petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as Drivers on ad hoc basis by an order dated 1.9.1997 issued by the Prohibition and Excise Commissioner, Haryana. After about nine months, their services were terminated by an order dated 16.6.1998. The petitioners and other Drivers challenged that order in four different writ petitions bearing Nos. 9433, 9444, 9445 and 9462 of 1998. During the pendency of those petitions, the Prohibition and Exice Commissioner, issued order dated 7.7.1998 for reigning in service 11 out of the 23 ad hoc Drivers till the availability of regular appointees recommended by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (re-named as Haryana Staff Selection Commission). After taking note of the order dated 7.7.1998 and considering the arguments of the learned counsel, a Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions except qua 11 senior-most Drivers.

(2.) The order dated 7.7.1998 was challenged in C.W.P. No. 10919 of 1998, Rajveer Singh v. State of Haryana and others, on the ground that the same was issued ignoring the policy of reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. That petition was disposed of by a Division Bench on November 6, 1998 with the following directions :-

(3.) The service of such candidates who are not found entitled to be retained in service but are continuing in service in the light of the observations made by the Court in Vijay Kumar's case shall be dispensed with after giving action oriented notice and opportunity of hearing.