Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The constitutional validity of the Punjab Government Notification (annexure P. 3 dated the 3rd May, 1977) authorising the regularisation of the services of teachers already employed on an ad hoc basis if they satisfy the conditions specified therein is the subject--matter of challenge in this set of writ petitions.

2. The facts are not in dispute and may be examined with reference to those in Civil Writ No. 1553 of 1977 Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab. it appears that in the year 1974, the respondent--State of Punjab was faced with the problem of recruiting thousands of teachers in its Department of Education. Included therein were 1797 posts of Social Study Matters/Mistresses, recruitment whereof was governed by the Punjab Education Service Class II. School Cadre rules, 1955. The respondent--State decided to fill these posts by way of direct recruitment under the rules aforesaid and to effectuate that purpose, a Departmental Recruitment Committee consisting of one Chairman and two members was constituted. The said Committee issued an advertisement in the daily Tribune dated the 16th of July, 1974(annexure P.1) inviting applications from eligible persons to the said post and the last date for the receipt of these applications was 8th Aug. 1974. This date, however was after extended upto December, 1974. The 443 petitioners applied for appointment along with thousands of their candidates who were all interviewed by the said Committee and the process was not finalised till the end of the year 1976. The petitioners were selected by the Recruitment Committee and their names were recommended to the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab for appointment as Social Study Masters in the month of Jan. 1977. Identical letters in the form of annexure P. 2 were issued to them requesting them to correspond with the concerned officer for necessary action for the purposes of their appointments. However, no appointment letters were issued in the petitioners' favor and before this could be done, the impugned notification, annexure P. 3, dated the 3rd May, 1977 was issued by the respondent--State. Thereby all the posts (including those against which the petitioners were to be appointed) which had come to be occupied by ad hoc employees were excluded from the purview of both the Subordinate Services Selection Board and the Departmental Recruitment Committee as the case may be. Instead it was directed that the services of all those ad hoc employees holding these posts who satisfied the conditions specified in the said notification were to be regularised after screening each case by the appointing authority, namely, the Director of Public Instructions. It was further directed that the process of regularisation of these cases should be completed within a maximum period of 3 months.

4. It is the case that the denial of appointment to the petitioners and the notification, annexure P. 3 is violative of Art. 16 of the Constitution. Further, that the notification aforesaid is contrary to the statutory rules and is this liable to be quashed on that ground as well.

5. The stand of the respondent--State, apart from the preliminary objections raised, (to which reference is unnecessary) may briefly be noticed. It is pointed out that the rationale for the regularisation of the services of ad hoc employees is that during the period of three years, they had acquired necessary experience and their ouster after a considerable period of service would entail hardship to them as a whole and further accentuate the problem of unemployment. Whilst weighing the comparative position of persons already in service on ad hoc basis for a long time and those yet to be recruited, the element of hardship in the case of the former is more conspicuous for the reason that they will get unsettled by their ouster. Nevertheless it is the claim that the respondent--State has attempted to draw a balance between the interest of the individuals and the larger interest of the administration. It has therefore, been laid down that all those candidates selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board or the Departmental Recruitment Committee who do not get adjusted in their capacity as ad hoc employees in the manner provided shall be adjusted against the remaining vacancies available after 31-3-1976, including those which were lying vacant prior to this date. It is then highlighted that due to the peculiar facts and the tenure of ad hoc employees and the experience gained by them they have been treated as a distinct class for the source of recruitment. It is emphasised source of recruitment. It is emphasised that even at the stage of original appointment of such ad hoc employees, the channel of Employment Exchanges which is open to all citizens was utilised. It has then been emphasised that the respondent--State is perfectly within the law to exclude any or all the posts from the purview of either the Subordinate Services Selection Board or from that of the Department Recruitment Committee.

22. Now, a significant thing which calls for pointed notice in these petitions is the fact that nowhere any challenge has been laid to the validity of the original appointments of p[persons who were recruited as ad hoc teachers during the long period for which the selection through ordinary channels continued to hang fire. In the writ petitions, there are no pleadings whatsoever either with regard to the facts or equally with regard to any ground on which the original appointments of ad hoc teachers could be assailed. It equally deserves highlighting that not a single ad hoc teacher has been even arrayed as the respondent in these writ petitions and only the official respondents have been made parties thereto, barring one Bhag Singh in Civil Writ No. 1460 of 1977, who also does not fall in the category of ad hoc teachers. In the total absence of any pleading on the point, the original appointments of ad hoc teachers in strictness cannot be the subject--matter of challenge and, therefore, the scope of the petitioners' attack is necessarily reduced to the limited ground whether such ad hoc employees can now reasonably be classified for the purpose of the regularisation of their services and consequently being directly appointed to the posts within the cadre. For the reasons already recorded, there is no manner of doubt that if their original appointments as ad hoc employees cannot be put in issue, then after more that 1 to 3 years' satisfactory service as teachers, they can clearly form a well defined class to which the State may reasonably resort to for the purposes of direct recruitment. That being so, in strictness, no other point survives for determination in these writ petitions.

32. Lastly, in this context it has to be borne in mind that the respondent--State has taken both a generous and a fair stand in considering the claims of the petitioners. It has been averred on its behalf that in the very peculiar circumstances and the administrative exigencies of the service, the existing ad hoc employees are to be screened and their services regularised if they fully satisfy the pre--conditions laid out in the impugned notification. The consideration of the petitioners' claims and those belonging to their class has merely been held in abeyance and their appointments are to be made against the remaining vacancies which may be left unfilled after the regularisation of the services of the ad hoc employees and against those which may have arisen after the 31st of March, 1976.