High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Vivek Poulsaty v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-6243-2006  RD-P&H 2319 (5 April 2006)
C.W.P. NO. 6243 OF 2006
Date of Decision: 25.4.2006
State of Haryana and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 10.2.2006 (P-13) passed by the District Education Officer, Kurukshetra - respondent No. 3, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner to reinstate him in service. A further prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to advertise the post of Sanskrit teacher and to fill up the same forthwith as per the direction issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 16749 of 1999, dated 27.11.2001 (P-4), has been sought with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on contractual basis on the post of Sanskrit teacher on the ground that several vacancies were available in various schools.
Brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.1997, the petitioner was given appointment on contractual basis on the consolidated salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month for a limited period of 89 days or till joining of a regular candidate. Accordingly, he joined as Sanskrit teacher at Government High School, Malikpur, District Kurukshetra. The condition of contractual appointment of 89 days at a consolidated salary of Rs.
3,500/- per month was challenged in a bunch of petitions including C.W.P. No. 6243 of 2006
C.W.P. No. 18835 of 1997. Those petitions were allowed on 17.4.1998.
The petitioner is stated to have worked upto 30.4.1998. He was relieved from service on account of the fact that a person appointed on regular basis, namely, Shri Parmod Kumar had joined, while retaining others who were also engaged on contractual basis. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No.
16749 of 1999, which was disposed of on 27.11.2001 with a direction to the respondents that in case the private respondents were found to be junior to the petitioner then their services to be terminated forthwith, the consequential vacancies were required to be advertised and filled up in accordance with the Rules. It is claimed that the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 11.8.2004 (P-12) requiring the respondents to comply with the order dated 27.11.2001 (P-4) passed in C.W.P. No. 16749 of 1999.
On account of apathy of the respondents, the petitioner is stated to have filed another C.W.P. No. 17202 of 2004 seeking a direction to the respondents to advertise and fill up the post of Sanskrit teacher as per the directions issued by this Court on 27.11.2001 in C.W.P. No. 16749 of
1999. Again the same relief was sought by the petitioner to reinstate him in service on contractual basis on the ground that several vacancies were available, especially when a number of other persons have been appointed in the meanwhile. The writ petition again was disposed of on 20.10.2005 directing the respondents to reconsider the matter and take a decision within a period of four months. The District Education Officer respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on 10.2.2006 by passing a detailed order (P-13) by observing as under:- " I have gone through the whole case and re-considered the matter of Sh. Vivek Poulsaty, Ex. Sanskrit teacher (on order of the contractual basis) in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court dated 20th
Oct. 2005. A list of 21 selected
candidates of (Sanskrit) General category who were selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana was received in this office vide letter No. 22/12/98-Estt-3(III) dated 10.04.98 from the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh which were to be appointed against the vacant posts (Posts occupied to by the teachers working on C.W.P. No. 6243 of 2006
contractual basis. After the issuance of appointment order, the petitioner was relieved on 30.04.98 due to joining of regular hand. Petitioner was relieved of his duty as per terms and conditions of the appointment letter which clearly stipulated that his services could be terminated on the expiry of 89 days or on joining of regular hand. The Principal of "first come last go" has duly been complied with. It is further submitted that no junior to the petitioner is in service.
It is further submitted that as per seniority list of Sanskrit teacher working on contract basis name of Sh. Ravinder Kumar (P/6) is at S. No. 2 whereas the present petitions (petitioner?) Sh. Vivek Poulsaty stands at S. No. 10 of the seniority lists. Hence the annexer attached at P-6, P-9 and P- 10 has no relevancy with the present case because the post of Sanskrit teacher is a district cadre post and selection was also made District wise. The claim of the petitioner is restricted to only District Kurukshetra but examples quoted in the writ at P-9 and P-10 relates to other Districts and therefore is of no aid to the petitioner. However Ravinder Kumar as cited P-6 was the senior most relieved candidate who has been appointed against the vacant post in compliance with the order dated 18.05.04 of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Sh. Vivek Poulsaty Petitioner could not be re appointed because senior teacher to him had also been relieved."
Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that no legal infirmity could be discovered in the order passed by the District Education Officer respondent No. 3. In accordance with the terms of contractual appointment, the petitioner was relieved on 30.4.1998 when a list of 21 selected candidates as Sanskrit teachers belonging to General Category was received from the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana on 10.4.1998. The petitioner was relieved on the issuance of appointment letter based on the list of selected candidates furnished by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana. It is further evident C.W.P. No. 6243 of 2006
that principle of `first come last go' has also been followed and no person junior to the petitioner has been found to be in service. Accordingly, the representation was rejected by concluding that there was no vacancy available. It is, thus, evident that neither any advertisement could be issued nor any of the relief claimed by the petitioner could be granted.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi & others, JT 2006(4) SC 420, has held that persons who are appointed on contract basis could always be relieved of their duties in terms of the contract. Moreover, once the appointment was made on contractual basis there was no question of continuing them after regular appointment was made. The petitioner should have competed in the regular selection which was made by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana. There is no vacancy available which may require the respondents to issue an advertisement.
For the reasons aforementioned, we uphold the order dated 10.2.2006 (P-13) and dismiss the writ petition.
April 25, 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.