Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 345 (PNJ)

Director Primary Education Haryana v. Babita Devi

2023-01-23

VINOD S.BHARDWAJ

body2023
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of impugned award dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service) Narnaul on an application under Section 22 (C) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 in case bearing No. 366 of 25.11.2016. 2. Briefly summarized the facts of the present case are that the respondent-applicant claims to be belonging to a Scheduled Caste and resident of village Megot Hala. She was working as a Cook (Mid-day meal) in primary school since 01.08.2010 alongwith one Uganta Devi wife of Sh. Balwant Singh & Maya Devi wife of Mahavir Singh. On account of the decrease in number of students, the post of Cook became surplus. She was thus removed being surplus on 03.04.2015. She thus filed an application that she being from the Scheduled Caste category and holder of a BPL card, her services were required to be restored and that service of others well to be removed as one post had to be kept reserved for Scheduled Caste. A compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was also prayed for. 3. The petitioner-department filed its response wherein it was submitted that there was no record with the school as to whether the respondent-applicant was holder of a BPL card or not. It was also pointed that Smt. Uganta Devi wife of Balwant Singh was six years senior to the respondent-applicant whereas Maya Devi wife of Mahavir was a widow having no source of income. She was also older than the respondent-applicant. Accordingly, in terms of the instructions contained in letter dated 24.12.2014, the surplus cook who joined later had to be relieved on the formula of ‘last come first go’. The said resolution having been passed, the services of the respondent-applicant were dispensed with. 4. The Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service) Narnaul allowed the aforesaid application filed by the respondent vide award dated 31.05.2018 and held that there is a requirement of 50% reservation for the post of Cook for the Scheduled Caste category and since the respondent-applicant belonged to the said category, hence, the second post must go to the person belonging to the reserved category. The decision of the Committee was thus set aside and the petitioner-department was directed to restore the service of the respondent-applicant. The decision of the Committee was thus set aside and the petitioner-department was directed to restore the service of the respondent-applicant. Further, backwages were also directed to be paid within a period of 45 days. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 contends that the said award has been implemented by the Executing Court. 6. Learned State counsel, however, contends that the issue requires adjudication and points out that the dispute in question was not maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Narnaul as the department does not fall within the definition of ‘Public Utility Services’ as defined under Section 22 (A) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The decision being in relation to the services and/or being governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Narnaul was beyond the scope of powers conferred upon it. 7. Counsel for the respondent-applicant has, however, failed to refer to any provision under which the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Narnaul had the jurisdiction to examine the dispute or that the Department of Education fell within the definition of ‘Public Utility Services’ as defined under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Besides, the applicability of the instructions has also not been examined by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Narnaul as any such instructions are applicable to the regular employees in a cadre. The terms of appointment of the respondent-applicant have also not been placed on record. Hence, the application of any circular, without recording a finding as to whether the respondent-applicant was governed by the terms and conditions of the said circular, is clearly a case of transgression of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) is confined to the ‘Public Utility Services’ as defined in the Act of 1987 and it does not exercise the ordinary power of a Civil Court to entertain any dispute. Counsel for respondent-applicant has not been refer to the clause wherefrom Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) assumed jurisdiction on the subject matter. Jurisdiction is a creation of statue and in the absence of any such vesting, exercise of jurisdiction not conferred suffer from lack of competence, rendering the act bad & liable to be set aside. Counsel for respondent-applicant has not been refer to the clause wherefrom Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) assumed jurisdiction on the subject matter. Jurisdiction is a creation of statue and in the absence of any such vesting, exercise of jurisdiction not conferred suffer from lack of competence, rendering the act bad & liable to be set aside. The award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Narnaul is thus clearly beyond the jurisdiction vested with the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) and is liable to be set aside. 8. However, taking into consideration the fact that the said award has already been implemented, the orders with regards to the recovery of the dues having already been paid to the petitioner and/or removal of the petitioner is not being passed, in the given facts of the present case. The award of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Narnaul suffers from lack of jurisdiction and thus is illegal. The same is thus not sustainable. 9. Petition is allowed. Petition allowed.