Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Pal Kaur & Ors vs Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board & ... on 30 August, 2022
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 1070 of 2012
Date of Decision: 30.08.2022
Raj Pal Kaur and others
......Petitioners
Vs.
Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others
.........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Kaushal, Advocate,
for respondents no. 1 and 2.
Mr. Teevar Sharma, A.A.G. Punjab.
*****
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 29.04.2010 and 20.05.2010, whereby the case of the petitioners for regularization from a prior date has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had been appointed as ad hoc clerks in the year 1986-87 and the private respondents who had joined after the petitioners had been regularized w.e.f. 31.12.1990. The petitioners ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 1990, the date when their juniors had been regularized.
Learned counsel for the respondents while referring to the written statement submits that the private respondents had cleared the type test prior to 11.01.1995 and they were regularized after relaxation of the educational qualification.
1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 02-09-2022 00:42:43 ::: 210 CWP No. 1070 of 2012 -2- The petitioners had cleared the type test much later and therefore they had been regularised w.e.f. 27.11.2003.The essential qualification for appointment as clerk was matriculation with first division but the same had been relaxed in the case of the petitioners and respondents after they had cleared the typing test in English and Punjabi.
Heard.
The petitioners had been appointed as ad hoc clerks in the year 1986-87. The one of the essential qualifications for the post of clerk is proficiency in English and Punjabi typing. The respondents had cleared the typing test ahead of the petitioners and therefore they had been regularized from a prior date. The petitioners had been regularized w.e.f. 27.11.2003 but the instant petition has been preferred after nearly a decade in the year 2012 seeking regularization from a prior date.
Therefore, as the private respondents had cleared the typing test prior to the petitioners, I do not find any infirmity in the official respondents regularizing the private respondents prior to the regularization of the petitioners.
Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
August 30, 2022 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
nitin JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 02-09-2022 00:42:43 :::