Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1953 (PNJ)

Raj Singh v. State Of Haryana

2008-11-21

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2008
Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. CM. No. 15006 of 2008. The application for early hearing of case is aliowed. C.W.P. No. 20413 of 2002. 2. The case is taken up with the consent of counsel for the parties for hearing for final decislon. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Lineman Instructor (Theory) on adhoc basis with respondents on 10.11.1987. Four posts of Lineman Instructor (Theory) were advertised for Ex-serviceman category by the respondents on 14.07.1987 through requisition. The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, vide its selection list dated 25.05.1989 recommended five candidates against four posts of Ex-serviceman category. The name of the petitioner was at Sr. No. 3 in the selection list. One candidate namely Shri Jagdish Lal who was shown at Sr. No. 1 in the Ex-serviceman category was offered appointment, however, the remaining candidates in the said list could not be appointed on regular basis due to stay order granted by this Court in favour of the adhoc employees who were working at that time as Lineman Instructor (Theory) in the respondent department. The petitioner continued as Lineman Instructor (Theory) on adhoc basis and ultimately his Services were regularised vide order dated 22.04.1992 with effect from 01.01.1991 in the light of the instructions dated 28.02.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner.submitted a representation to the respondents that his service be regularised, from the date his name was recommended by the Subordinate Services Selection Board i.e. 25.05.1989. The said representation was dated 23.01.2002 (Annexure-P-7). In the representation, the petitioner prayed that his case is fully covered by the ratio of Judgment passed by this Court in C. W.P. No. 15308 of 1995 titled Smt. Saroj Kumari vs. Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana. The Claim of the petitioner was considered by the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, and vide order dated 17.05.2002, the same was rejected primarily on the ground of delay. 4. A perusal of the order Annexure P-8 would show that the ground for non- grant of the ciaim to the petitioner is that the validity of the selection list issued by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, is for one year as per Government instructions. The selection list of Lineman Instructor (Theory) was issued on 25.05.1989 by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, and therefore, its validity was upto 24.05.1990. The selection list of Lineman Instructor (Theory) was issued on 25.05.1989 by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, and therefore, its validity was upto 24.05.1990. In view of the fact that there was stay order operating against appointment to which the petitioner is claiming to have been selected, the petitioner could not be appointed on regular basis. Since the period of one year expired during the continuation of said stay order, the life span of the select list stood exhausted, and therefore, the petitioner couid not be appointed on regular basis oh the basis of select list. 5. Further stand of the respondents is that he cannot be considered for the Claim at this belated stage after lapse of more than 12 years. Yet another reason given for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that no candidate lower in merit out of the select list was appointed by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner has no preferential right where he could claim that there was violation of equality or the principles of natural justice in any manner. 6. The stand of the respondents in the written Statement is the same as has been taken by them in the decision dated 17.05.2002 (Annexure P-8), however, the facts are not in dispute in this case. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 8. There is no dispute with regard to qualification or the competency of the petitioner. It is not disputed that he was appointed on adhoc basis on 10.11.1987 and he continued as such. He was selected on regular basis by the Subordinate Services Selection Board and his name was put at Sr. No. 3 of the select list dated 25.05.1989. No fault can be attributed to the petitioner for not being appointed on the said post as he was always ready and willing to join the post on his selection. The difficulty which has been pointed out by the respondents which lead to his not being appointed is the stay which was granted by this Court, and therefore, the period for which the select list was to have effect had expired. It is also not in dispute that as per the instructions dated 28.02.1991 the Services of the petitioner Stands regularised with effect from 01.01.1991. It is also not in dispute that as per the instructions dated 28.02.1991 the Services of the petitioner Stands regularised with effect from 01.01.1991. This wouldgo to show that while the petitioner was working on ad-hoc basis his working and conduct was upto the mark which is not in dispute. The only distinction which has been drawn in the case of the petitioner and in the case of the decision in C. W.P. No. 15308 of 1995 titled Saroj Kumari vs. Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, on which basis the petitioner had sought parity is that no person lower in merit was appointed and that the life of the select list has outlived its Utility as per the instrüctions on completion of one year. Since, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner, therefore, he cannot be deprived of a fight which would have accrued to him and which the respondents also admit he wouid have been entitled to except for the stay Order passed by this Court. 9. The other aspect which has been taken into consideration is that his claim cannot be now considered at belated stage after lapse of more than 12 years. This would not come in the way of granting relief to the petitioner for the simple reason that the petitioner had been agitating throughout this claim along with claim for grant to him the military service benefits. The military Service benefits were granted to him vide order dated 31.03.1998, but this Claim was not granted to the petitioner. Both these Claims were made simultaneously of which one was rejected and the other was granted. Therefore, it would not lie with the Respondents now to say that he had not agitated the matter and there is a delay on the part of the petitioner especially when the claim of the petitioner was rejected in 1998 and thereafter in 2002 vide order dated 17.0.5.2002 (Annexure-P-8). There is no delay which could be thus attributed to the petitioner disentitling him the ciaim on the ground of delay. 10. In the light of what has been held above, this petttion is aliowed and order dated 17.05.2002 (Annexure P-8) is hereby quashed. There is no delay which could be thus attributed to the petitioner disentitling him the ciaim on the ground of delay. 10. In the light of what has been held above, this petttion is aliowed and order dated 17.05.2002 (Annexure P-8) is hereby quashed. A direction is issued to respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner to have been regularly appointed with effect from 25.05.1989, the date on which the petitioner was put in the select list by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, on the postof Lineman Instructor (Theory) drawing force from the judgment of this Court in Saroj Kumaris case supra. It goes without saying that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including the military service benefits treating him to be appointed on regular basis with effect from 25.05.1989. Petition allowed