Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

USHA RANI versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Usha Rani v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-9094-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 10151 (9 November 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 9094 of 2006

Date of Decision: 9.11.2006

Usha Rani

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

None for respondent No. 4.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to issue directions to the official respondents 1 to 3, to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Library Science having been regularly selected as per the recommendations made by the Haryana Public Service Commission (for brevity, `the Commission'), vide its letter dated 4.12.2004 (P-1).

It is appropriate to mention that the Commission has recommended CWP No. 9094 of 2006

the name of the petitioner for appointment as Lecturer in Library Science in pursuance to the requisition for recruitment of Class-II posts in various Polytechnics under the Technical Education Department, Haryana.

Brief facts of the case are that on 5.8.2004 respondent No. 2 sent a requisition to the Commission for recruitment of Class-II posts in various Polytechnics under Technical Education Department, Haryana. On 16.9.2004, an advertisement was issued for recruitment to Group `B' posts in various Polytechnics under Technical Education Department, Haryana including one post of Lecturer in Library Science. The petitioner being qualified and eligible applied for the post and she was called for interview on 5.11.2004. On 4.12.2004, the petitioner having been selected was recommended by the Commission and her name was forwarded to respondent No. 2 for appointment. However, no action was taken by respondent No. 2 to appoint her.

Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Lecturer in Library Science on ad hoc basis with a stipulation that her services were only a stop gap arrangement for a period of six months or she was to be relieved as soon as the candidate recommended by the Commission join the post held by her, whichever is earlier.

Respondent No. 4 and some others persons had filed C.W.P. No.

1783 of 1999 seeking regularisation of their services on various posts held by them. Respondent No. 4 sought regularisation of her services on the post of Lecturer in Library Science, which was later CWP No. 9094 of 2006

on advertised by the Commission as noticed above. On 10.12.1999, this Court had passed an order of status quo in respect of some of the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 1783 of 1999. However, in respect of respondent No. 4, who was one of the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1783 of 1999, status quo order was passed on 15.10.2004 with the observation that status quo was to be maintained till the next date of hearing because the aforementioned order was issued by the learned Single Judge as the writ petition had been admitted on 22.8.2002 without granting any status quo order qua respondent No. 4 at that stage.

The stand of the official respondents in the written statement is that the post for which the petitioner has been selected is occupied by respondent No. 4 and there is status quo order operating in her favour. It has further been asserted that one Shri Vijender Singh, Lecturer in Library Science has been promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer in Library Science by order dated 1.12.2005 and he had joined on the promoted post on 7.12.2005. In para 7 it is conceded position that the post of Lecturer in Library Science has become vacant on 7.12.2005, however, it has been asserted that since the name of the petitioner was not recommended against the aforementioned post vacated by Shri Vijender Singh, the petitioner could not stake any claim to the said post. A reference has also been made to the opinion expressed by the Chief Secretary, Haryana, dated 3.5.2006 (R-2).

CWP No. 9094 of 2006

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that in somewhat similar situation this Court has allowed the case of Charanjit Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 2905 of 2006, decided on 25.9.2006). The only difference appears to be that in the cited judgment the post of Lecturer in Commercial Practice was involved whereas in the instant case the post of Lecturer in Library Science is in dispute. In Charanjit Singh's case (supra) we have noticed the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. We have also extracted a paragraph from the aforementioned judgment as well as from another judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela, (2006) 2 SCC 482, wherein it has been held that the appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement, inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement. It has further been observed that a regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered.

CWP No. 9094 of 2006

Similar observations made in the case of Uma Devi (supra) have also been noticed. In the case of Charanjit Singh (supra) we have also expressed our displeasure to the official respondents therein in so far as they have supported the case of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by observing that such a stand defiles ignorance. Therefore, we find that the instant petition is covered by the view expressed by us in the case of Charanjit Singh (supra).

We have no hesitation to hold that respondent No. 4 has apparently no right to hold such a post on the basis of her ad hoc appointment or to seek regularisation in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). There cannot be a State policy for regularisation of services on a Class-II post. Such a policy is always confined to Class-III and Class-IV posts. Even otherwise we find that the order dated 15.10.2004, which was passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of respondent No. 4 in C.W.P. No. 1783 of 1999, was only operative till the next date of hearing. In order to advance the basic object of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution we have thought it just and proper to opine that the order dated 15.10.2004 was to operate only till the next date of hearing and not thereafter. Even otherwise, in para 54 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), it has been clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in that judgment or in which directions have been issued running counter to that judgment were to stand denuded of their status as precedents. Accordingly, the appointment of respondent CWP No. 9094 of 2006

No. 4 is liable to be set aside because as per the stipulation in the letter of her appointment she could continue till the arrival of regularly selected candidate from the Public Service Commission.

In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed with costs. A direction is issued to the official respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Library Science within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them. The petitioner may be offered the post vacated by Shri Vijender Singh or held by respondent No. 4. The petitioner shall be given appointment on the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission, dated 4.12.2004, which was made in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.9.2004, by giving her the benefit of seniority, pay fixation and increments etc. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to the arrears of salary from the date of the writ petition, which has been filed on 30.5.2006. The petitioner is also held entitled to her costs, which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

November 9, 2006

JUDGE

Pkapoor


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.