ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20737 OF 1997. 2. BALKAR SINGH, RESPONDENT HEREIN, WAS APPOINTED ON AD HOC BASIS IN THE YEAR 1996 FOR A PERIOD OF 89 DAYS. HIS SERVICES WERE SOUGHT TO BE TERMINATED WITHOUT SELECTING THE CANDIDATES ON A REGULAR BASIS TO FILL UP THE POSTS. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID PROPOSED ACTION, THE RESPONDENT FILED WRIT PETITION NO. 3827 OF 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SEEKING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE STATE TO PERMIT HIM TO CONTINUE WORKING ON AD HOC BASIS (ON 89-DAYS BASIS) TILL THE CANDIDATES DULY SELECTED WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY/SELECTING AGENCY. 3. THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION BY A DETAILED ORDER ON A 1 -4- 1 997 STATING THEREIN THAT BACK -DOOR APPOINTMENTS MADE ON AD HOC BASIS COULD NOT BE CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AS IT LEADS TO NEPOTISM AND FAVOURITISM. A POSITIVE DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO THE STATE TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF ALL THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE APPOINTED ON AD HOC BASIS (89-DAYS BASIS) AND TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS ON REGULAR BASIS AFTER DUE SELECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS ORDER BECAME FINAL BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 4. THE STATE OF PUNJAB FILED AN INTERIM APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER. 5. THE HIGH COURT, AGAIN BY A DETAILED ORDER, DEPRECATED THE PRACTICE OF MAKING APPOINTMENTS ON AD HOC BASIS BUT KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENORMOUS EXERCISE TO BE UNDERGONE, THE COURT EXTENDED THE TIME TO IMPLEMENT ITS JUDGMENT BY 31-7-1997. FRESH DIRECTIONS WERE ISSUED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT, THE STATE OF PUNJAB HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. WHILE GRANTING LEAVE, THIS COURT STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. THE STATE OF PUNJAB ON 18-2-2003 REPRESENTED TO THIS COURT THAT A SCHEME HAS BEEN PROMULGATED FOR REGULARISATION OF AD HOC EMPLOYEES AS A ONE-TIME MEASURE ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS AS THE EMPLOYEES APPOINTED ON AD HOC BASIS HAD CONTINUED IN SERVICE FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS. ON SUCH A REPRESENTATION THE COURT ADJOURNED THE CASE STATING AS UNDER: "INTERVENTION AS WELL AS THE IMPLEADMENT APPLICATIONS MOVED IN THE MATTERS ARE ALLOWED. ON SUCH A REPRESENTATION THE COURT ADJOURNED THE CASE STATING AS UNDER: "INTERVENTION AS WELL AS THE IMPLEADMENT APPLICATIONS MOVED IN THE MATTERS ARE ALLOWED. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE SCHEME NOW PROMULGATED FOR REGULARISATION OF THE AD HOC EMPLOYEES APPOINTED PRIOR TO 13-6-1996. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE STATE IS ALLOWED FOUR WEEKS TIME TO SEEK NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE INTERVENTION APPLICATIONS AND INDICATE THE POSSIBLE SOLUTION, ACCORDINGLY." 8. THE STATE OF PUNJAB HAS FRAMED A POLICY WHICH HAS BEEN PUT ON RECORD WITH AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 7-2-2003. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THAT POLICY READS AS UNDER: "WHILE REGULARISING THE SERVICES OF SUCH EMPLOYEES, THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES MAY BE KEPT IN VIEW: (I) THE POLICY SHALL APPLY ONLY TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE APPOINTED ON 89 DAYS/AD HOC BASIS/TEMPORARY BASIS ON OR BEFORE 13-6-1996 AGAINST PERMANENT/REGULAR/TEMPORARY POSTS WHICH LATER BECAME PERMANENT. (II) IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY AND RECORD A CERTIFICATE THAT NO PERSON SELECTED THROUGH ADVERTISEMENT/SELECTION COMMITTEE/SELECTION BOARD WAS DEPRIVED OF APPOINTMENT DUE TO CONTINUATION ALLOWED TO AN AD HOC EMPLOYEE AS PER CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 14/33/94-4PP.3/6779 DATED 9-4-1997. (III) IT SHALL ALSO BE VERIFIED THAT NO SUPERNUMERARY POST WAS CREATED TO RETAIN THESE EMPLOYEES IN SERVICE WHEN DULY SELECTED PERSONS WERE APPOINTED ON REGULAR BASIS. (IV) THE REGULARISATION OF THESE EMPLOYEES DOES NOT ADVERSELY EFFECT THOSE WHO WERE APPOINTED ON REGULAR BASIS AFTER FOLLOWING CORRECT SELECTION PROCEDURE. 3. APART FROM THE ABOVE THE EMPLOYEE(S) CONCERNED FULFILS THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: (A) HE/SHE POSSESSED QUALIFICATIONS PRESCRIBED FOR THE POST AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT AND SATISFIED ALL ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS AS PER SERVICE RULES. (B) THE WORK AND CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT HAS BEEN SATISFACTORY. (C) A MEDICAL FITNESS CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF DATE OF BIRTH AS PER STANDING INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE OBTAINED IF NOT DONE AT THE TIME OF EXTENDING HIS APPOINTMENT BEYOND 89 DAYS. (D) HIS/HER ANTECEDENTS SHOULD BE GOT VERIFIED FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS PER GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS IF IT WAS NOT DONE EARLIER. (E) THE REGULARISATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF ORDERS TO BE ISSUED AND AFTER DETERMINING INTER SE SENIORITY AMONGST EMPLOYEES REGULARISED UNDER THIS POLICY, WITH REFERENCE TO CONTINUOUS SERVICE. THEY SHALL ALL BE PLACED BELOW THE EMPLOYEES LAST APPOINTED ON REGULAR BASIS AFTER FOLLOWING PROPER PROCEDURE. 4. (E) THE REGULARISATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF ORDERS TO BE ISSUED AND AFTER DETERMINING INTER SE SENIORITY AMONGST EMPLOYEES REGULARISED UNDER THIS POLICY, WITH REFERENCE TO CONTINUOUS SERVICE. THEY SHALL ALL BE PLACED BELOW THE EMPLOYEES LAST APPOINTED ON REGULAR BASIS AFTER FOLLOWING PROPER PROCEDURE. 4. SINCE THE REGULARISATION IS BEING DONE ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM IT AS A RIGHT IF FOUND UNSUITABLE DUE TO NON-FULFILMENT OF ANY OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN FUTURE THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN HIS/HER DEPARTMENT SHALL PERSONALLY ENSURE THAT SUCH TYPE OF ILLEGAL/IRREGULAR APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT MADE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. IF ANY SUCH INSTANCE WILL COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN FUTURE, THEN APART FROM TAKING DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST THE GUILTY OFFICIALS/OFFICERS, THEY [DEALING OFFICIAL(S) UP TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY] SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE PAYMENT OF SALARY FROM THEIR OWN POCKET TO SUCH APPOINTEE(S). 6. ACTION TO REGULARISE THE SERVICES OF EMPLOYEES WORKING ON 89 DAYS/TEMPORARY/AD HOC BASIS POLICY MAY BE COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THESE INSTRUCTIONS MAY PLEASE BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL THE OFFICERS AND OTHER BODIES WORKING UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF YOUR DEPARTMENT. THE APPOINTEES WHO DO NOT FULFIL THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THIS POLICY, THEIR SERVICES SHALL BE DISPENSED WITH AFTER FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF LAW." 9. AFTER THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER BY THE HIGH COURT ON 1-4-1997, CERTAIN POSTS WERE ADVERTISED, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS WERE FILED. APPREHENDING THAT THE POLICY PROPOSED TO BE FRAMED BY THE STATE MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THEIR INTEREST, SOME OF THE APPLICANTS WHO HAD APPLIED IN RESPONSE TO THE FRESH ADVERTISEMENT FILED AN INTERVENTION APPLICATION OPPOSING THE SAID POLICY AS WELL AS FOR DIRECTIONS TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF SELECTION WHICH HAD BEEN PUT INTO MOTION. INTERVENTION APPLICATIONS WERE ALSO FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE POLICY AS WELL. ALL THESE INTERVENTION APPLICATIONS ARE TAKEN LIP WITH THESE APPEALS. 10. SHRI SARUP SINGH, COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB, FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ORDER DELIVERED ON 1-4-1997 DIRECTING THE STATE NOT TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS ON AD HOC BASIS AND FURTHER TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENTS ON A REGULAR BASIS AFTER DUE SELECTION IS NOT UNDER CHALLENGE IN THESE APPEALS AND, THEREFORE, NO EXCEPTION COULD BE TAKEN TO THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE COURT. HE ARGUED THAT SINCE THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAD BEEN STAYED BY C THIS COURT AS AN INTERIM MEASURE, THE EMPLOYEES APPOINTED ON AD HOC BASIS HAVE CONTINUED IN SERVICE FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS, AND, THEREFORE, ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS THE STATE HAS FRAMED THE PRESENT POLICY AS A ONE-TIME MEASURE. THAT IN FUTURE ALL APPOINTMENTS SHALL BE MADE ON A REGULAR BASIS AFTER DUE SELECTION AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT. SHRI R.K. KAPOOR, COUNSEL APPEARING FOR BALKAR SINGH (THE ORIGINAL WRIT PETITIONER) HAS D NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED POLICY FRAMED BY THE STATE. THE POLICY WAS OPPOSED BY SHRI SUDHIR CHANDRA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE INTERVENING RESPONDENTS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT SINCE THE EARLIER DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT HAD BECOME FINAL THE SAME COULD NOT BE PUT AT NAUGHT BY THE POLICY NOW FRAMED BY THE STATE ALLEGEDLY ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS, THUS, JEOPARDISING THE CHANCES OF INTERVENING RESPONDENTS FOR BEING SELECTED ON A REGULAR BASIS. 11. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE SCOPE OF THIS APPEAL IS LIMITED AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT QUASHING THE APPOINTMENTS MADE ON AD HOC BASIS AND FURTHER DIRECTIONS THAT THE APPOINTMENTS TO THE PUBLIC OFFICES SHOULD BE MADE ONLY AFTER DUE SELECTION AND AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALL THE ELIGIBLE PERSONS DESIROUS OF COMPETING HAVE BECOME FINAL. OTHERWISE ALSO F NO EXCEPTION CAN BE TAKEN TO THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE HIGH COURT. BUT KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB WHO HAVE WORKED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNDER THE INTERIM ORDER MADE BY THIS COURT WOULD BE THROWN OUT, WE PERMIT THE STATE OF PUNJAB TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY FRAMED BY IT PURELY ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS. SOME OF THESE EMPLOYEES IN THE MEANTIME MAY HAVE BECOME OVERAGE. IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR 9 THEM TO FIND NEW JOBS AT THIS STAGE OF THEIR LIFE. THIS ARRANGEMENT IS A ONE-TIME MEASURE. THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HIGH COURT IN ITS ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT APPOINTMENTS SHOULD NOT BE MADE ON AD HOC BASIS AND THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE MADE ONLY AFTER DUE SELECTION IS UPHELD BEING UNEXCEPTIONABLE. WE PERMIT THE STATE TO CONSIDER THE CASES FOR REGULARISATION OF THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE APPOINTED BEFORE 13-6-1996 ON AD HOC BASIS IN TERMS OF THE POLICY. WE PERMIT THE STATE TO CONSIDER THE CASES FOR REGULARISATION OF THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE APPOINTED BEFORE 13-6-1996 ON AD HOC BASIS IN TERMS OF THE POLICY. SINCE WE ARE TAKING THIS VIEW PURELY ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS THIS BE TAKEN AS A ONE-TIME MEASURE AND NOT TO BE REPEATED AGAIN. 12. THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF IN THESE TERMS WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.