Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sat Pal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 August, 2000
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. By this order, we propose to dispose of two connected Latters Patent Appeals filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent bearing Nos. 1220 and 1221 of 1994 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest likewise.
2. Petitioners, Jai Narain and nine others including appellant herein - Sat Pal (in CWP No. 2999 of 1986 giving rise to LPA No. 1220 of 1994) and petitioners Madan Lal and two others, including appellant Anand Singh (in CWP No. 30(sic) of 1986, giving rise to LPA No. 1221 of 1994) clamoured for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order, Annexure P-3, dated May 22, 1986 vide which petitioner No. 5 Suman Bala in CWP No. 2999 of 1986 and order dated May 22, 1986, Annexure P-2, vide which petitioner No. 1 Madan Lal in CWP No. 3023 of 1986, who were working on ad hoc basis as Social Studies Instructors, were asked to quit. They were ordered to be relieved immediately. Other petitioners, as per fheir case, were, however not served an order of termination of their services. It was pleaded that with regard lo other petitioners also similar orders had since been issued. It was further prayed that services of petitioners be regularised.
3. It is quite apparent from reading of the impugned order dated May 11, 1994, passed by the learned Single Judge that cause of petitioners so as to set aside orders of termination was not pressed. It is the alternative prayer with regard io regularisation of their services that alone seems to have been mooted. The impugned order passed in CWP No. 2999 of 1986 shows that learned State counsel slated that whereas, services of petitioners 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 had since been regularised, petitioners 2, 5 and 8 were not entitled to any relief as they were neither in service when order of status quo was passed nor at the time when orders were passed by the learned Single Judge. Insofar as pefitioner No. 1 is concerned, he had since expired before the writ petition could be taken up for final hearing. This contention of learned State counsel was not repelled by the counsel representing the petitioners. It is on the basis of these two statements alone that writ qua petitioners 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 was disposed of as having become in-frucuous whereas qua petitioners 2, 5 and 8 it was dismissed. Inasmuch as services of petitioner No. 10 had not been regularised, a direction was issued to do so with immediate effect.
4. In CWP No. 3023 of 1986, learned State counsel stated that whereas, petitioner No. 1 was in service and his services had not been regularised, petitioners 2 and 3 were not in service. Accordingly, a direction was issued to regularise the services of petitioner No. 1 and writ qua petitioners 2-and 3 was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, without there being any plea raised in the memorandum of appeal or even during the course of arguments that case before the learned Single Judge was not argued only for regularisation of services of such petitioner, who were still in service, has sought to add new dimensions to the case for the first time. It has strenuously been canvassed before us that services of Anup Singh, petitioner No 10 (in CWP No. 2999 of 1986) had since been regularised despite the fact that appellant-Sat Pal Singh was senior to him and, thus, had precedence in getting the relief that was granted to the said petitioner. Contention of the counsel in LPA No. 1221 of 1994 is likewise.
6. Before, however, we may answer this question and also might comment something with regard io this plea having been raised for the first time during the course of arguments, it would be useful to give brief facts that may be necessary to adjudicate upon the controversy raised before us. The facts have been extracted from CWP No. 2999 of 1986.
7. Petitioners, including appellant Sat Pal Singh were appointed as Social Studies Instructors in the year 1983-84. They possessed qualifications of B.A., B.Ed, with Psychology as one of subjects in B.A. They were appointed on ad hoc basis against the post of Social Studies Instructors at various Industrial Training and Vocational Education Institutes. It has been iheir case that in the year 1082, subject of Social Studies was introduced for the first time at various Industrial Training Institutes throughout the country. The Ministry of , under the Government of India, laid down the various guidelines and qualifications required for appointing Social Studies Instructors at various Industrial Training Institutes dealing with Craftsman Training Scheme. The Government of India vide its letter dated September 24, 1982 laid down the qualifications and experience for the post of Social Studies Instructors. The Government of Haryana also adopted this letter and a copy thereof was sent to the Director, Vocational Education, respondent No. 2. It was further pleaded that the respondent authorities in the year 1983 proceeded to make appointments under the Craftsman Training Scheme for the first time, through Employment Exchange. A total number of sixty-four posts were filled in 1983. Petitioners 1 to 9, who had Psychology as one of subjects in B.A., were selected. The qualifications laid down for the post were B.A., B.Ed, with Sociology/Psychology/Social Work, as one of the subjects in B.A. In the year 1984, the respondents made selections for nine more posts of Social Studies Instructors and same qualifications were laid down. Petitioner No. 10, who possessed Psychology was selected and appointed. It is further their case that they had been working on the posts since the date of appointment without any break and they had been earning their increments regularly but, to their utter surprise, the services of all those ad hoc Social Studies instructors possessing Psychology as one of the subjects and working in the department, were being terminated without assigning any reason whatsoever. The services of those ad hoc instructors, who possessed Sociology as one of the subjects in B.A. were being retained irrespective of the fact if they were junior to petitioners or not. Sixty-four persons in all were appointed in the year 1983 and nine persons were appointed in 1984. A number of persons appointed with the petitioners in the year 1983 and thereafter in 1984 were being retained in service for the reason that they possessed Sociology as one of the subjects in B.A. It is on these pleadings that alternative reliefs, as referred to above, were asked for.
8. The cause of petitioners was opposed by respondents 1 and 2 who filed their written statement through Smt. Kamla Chaudhary, 1AS, Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, Chandigarh. It was, inter alia, pleaded that the Union of India decided to introduce the subject of Social Studies in various Industrial Training Institutes in the country and as such laid down certain qualifications for the said post. The said scheme was introduced on September 24, 1982 and the qualifications prescribed in the said circular letter were :
i) Bachelor's degree with Sociology/Psychology/Social Work
ii) Post Employment Training either in CSTARI or in other Govt. Organisations.
iii) Teaching experience preferable. Keeping in view the aforesaid circular letter of the Union of India, the petitioners were appointed along with others. Though the petitioners were not having the above mentioned requisite qualifications, but they were appointed as at that time persons having above mentioned qualifications were not available. Petitioners did not have requisite qualifications as none of them had the subject of (i) Sociology/Psychology, and (ii) Post-employment training either in CSTARTI or in other Government Organisation. The Union of India issued another circular letter dated April 3,1984 revising the qualifications regarding the aforesaid posts as under :
"Essential :
(i) Degree is Sociology/Economics/Social Work.
(ii) B.Ed. or its equivalent."
Keeping in view the circular aforesaid, respondents decided to surrender 56 posts out of 68 posts and kept only 11 persons, who had requisite qualifications as contained in circular letter, Annexure R/2 dated April 3,1984. None of the petitioners had the requisite qualifications as mentioned above whereas the persons who were retained, had the requisite qualifications for the post in question and, thus, there was no question of discrimination in any manner, or, for that matter, preferring a junior over the senior. It was further pleaded that Raj Singh and Mahabir Singh possessed the qualifications of B.A. with Sociology and B.Ed, and they were not similarly situated. None of the petitioners possessed the qualifications like Raj Singh and Mahabir Singh. It has further been pleaded that 10+2 Vocation System had been introduced in the State of Haryana in August, 1983. Another new subject, i.e.. General Foundation Course had been introduced in the Syllabus of the newly opened Vocational Education Institutes and as such eight persons who had the requisite qualifications for the said post were also adjusted. Some were junior to the petitioners and some were senior to them but the petitioners did not have the qualifications for the above mentioned post.
9. When the matter came up for motion hearing on June 3, 1986 counsel then representing the petitioners made a statement that termination orders had not been served upon the petitioners. On this statement of the learned counsel, the Bench ordered status-quo till next date of hearing. The matter was ultimately admitted on September 3, 1986 and interim order with regard to status-quo was ordered to continue. The writ petitions camp up for final disposal on May 11, 1994, i.e., after a period of about eight years. It of quite apparent from reading of para 14 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that order of termination of services of some of the petitioners had since been implemented. No doubt, there is some confusion with regard to whom the orders aforesaid had since been implemented but, after sending for the records and verifying fhe same, learned State counsel informs us that it is petitioners 2, 5 and 8 who had since already been relieved before order of status-quo was passed by this Court.
10. The relevant facts, as have been given by us above, would clearly show the reason why nothing at all was argued before the learned Single, Judge but for asking for regularisation of services of those, who were continuing in service or in other words, regarding whom order of termination had since not been implemented. Why nothing at all has been stated in the memorandum of appeal on that count is also apparent. The appellants, in any case, did not have the requisite qualifications and even as per instructions of the Government, dealing with regularisation, they were not entitled to the relief, as asked for by them. The respondents regularised the services of those, who answered the qualifications to the post under contention, commensurate to the vacancies that were required to be filled and that too in order of seniority.
11. In the facts, as have been fully detailed above, this Court is of the view that the appellants should not be permitted to raise the question of discrimination of retaining juniors in preference to the seniors, for the first time and that too during the course of arguments.
Finding no merit in these appeals, we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
12. Appeals dismissed.