Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. He have considered the respective contention urged by Shri Pathela and Shri Khosla and are in agreement with the learned Deputy Advocate General that the petitioners are not entitled to be regularised in service. The instructions issued by the government vide circular dated 17.3.1992, on which reliance has been placed by Shri Pathela, cannot be invoked by the petitioners for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to regularise their services because in terms of para 1(ii) of that circular regularisation of adhoc/temporarily appointed employees to class-II and class-IV services or posts could be made only if they had been appointed through employment exchange or by an open advertisement and it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not appointed cither through the agency of the employment exchange or by an open advertisement. Likewise, the instructions issued by the government on 18.1.1995 are not available to the petitioners for seeking regularisation of their services in view of the decisions of this Court in C.W.P. No.  9962 of 1995 Jagjinder Pal Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors., decided on 31.5.1996 and C.W.P. No.  18541 of 1996 Sukhbir Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors., decided on 22.5.1997. The facts of Sukhbir Kaur's case are quite similar to the facts of the present case. She was appointed as Clerk on 30.10.1989 for a period of 89 days and was allowed to continue in that capacity till 1994/1995. She prayed for regularisation of service on the basis of the instructions issued by the government vide circular dated 19.1.1995. The court rejected the plea of Sukhbir Kaur on the ground that she had not been appointed through the employment exchange or by an open advertisement. The following portions of the order dated 22.5.1997, which are relevant to the subject matter of this case, are extracted below :-

In Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Narinder Mohan, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1808, the Supreme Court reversed the directions given by the High Court for regularisation of services of Medical Officers who had rendered long periods of service. The Court held that where recruitment is regulated by statutory rules, the government has no power to issue executive instructions for regularising the services of ad hoc employees. While setting aside the directions given by the High Court for regularisation of the services of ad hoc doctors, the Supreme Court observed:-

While dealing with the argument of the writ petitioners that the Apex Court had itself given direction for regularisation of the services of adhoc and temporary appointees, the Court observed:-

"Therefore, this Court did not appear to have intended to lay down as a general rule that in every category of ad hoc appointment, if the ad hoc appointee continues for long period, the rules of recruitment should be relaxed and the appointment by relaxation be made."...............After considering the observations made by the Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case (supra), the government reviewed its policy on the issue of regularisation of the services of different categories of employees. Vide circular No. 11/18/88-4PF4H/7244 dated 7.5.1993, the government directed that the instructions issued vide circular letter No. 11/18/91-4PP-HI/13098 dated 6.9.1991 and circular letter No. 11/18/91/4-PP-III/5244 dated 22.4.1992 should be given effect to and the ad hoc employees who were covered by those instructions be regularised within a period of four months. The government also directed the Statutory Public Corporation Boards in the State to follow the instructions contained in the circular letters dated 6.9.1991 and 22.4.1992 in the matter of regularisation of their ad hoc employees. At the same time, a direction was issued that no appointment should be made on ad hoc basis on a post on which an ad hoc employee is already working. The government also decided to regularise the services of the work charge/casual/daily wage appointees. Those work charges employees who were working on non-project work-charge establishments were directed to be regularised if they had completed to be regularised if they had completed five years' service as on 31.9.1992. For casual/daily wage employees, the condition of ten years' service as on 31.8.1992 come to be prescribed.
Some time in the year 1994, a proposal was mooted for regularising the services of ad hoc and temporary employee who had completed two years' service as on 31.12.1993. However, the then Chief Minister made a suggestion on 3.12.1994 that provision may be made for regularisation of services of employees who had completed one year's service on 30.11.1994. Thereafter, memorandum dated 5.12.1994 was placed before the Council of Ministers for taking a decision on the issue of regularisation of services of those who had completed one year's service as on 30.11.1994. The conditions which were required to be satisfied for regularisation of services of ad hoc/temporary appointees were:-