Satinder Pal Kaur v. State of Punjab

services from the due date. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim by passing a speaking order. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P15) has been passed declining regularization of the petitioner’s ad hoc services on the solitary ground already noticed above. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 5 – (8). In my considered view, the action of the respondents in denying regularization of services of the petitioner even after retaining her for a period of over 30 years on ad hoc basis is patently arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair and cannot sustain. The very object of the Policy-decisions dated 26.10.1982 and 29.03.1985 (Annexures P4 and P5) was to remove the uncertainty amongst the ad hoc teachers/employees and to extend them the protection available to a civil servant under Article 311 of the Constitution. It was with this avowed object that the Policy/Circular intended to encompass within its purview even those temporary/ad-hoc employees who were lacking in the prescribed qualifications, age etc. but were otherwise working to the satisfaction of the competent authority. There is not even a whisper in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner’s work or conduct was ever found to be unsatisfactory. That being so, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of paragraph 8 of the Policy- decision dated 26.10.1982 (Annexure P4) as she had completed more than three-years of ad hoc service on the date of issue of the Policy/Circular. Similarly, she was fully eligible for the grant of CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 6 – concession extended by the Policy dated

29.03.1985 to the ineligible ad-hoc employees. (9). It needs to be mentioned here that according to the respondents, the petitioner lacks qualification of only the Orientation Course of one-year duration meant for the newly-recruited Teachers. The petitioner, having worked to the satisfaction of the respondents for a period of over 30 years is no longer a novice in teaching skills and the rule prescribing that qualification, at least in her case, has broken down completely and/or shall be deemed to have been relaxed qua her. The respondents, at this belated stage, cannot be heard to say that the petitioner ought to have possessed one-year OT Course from an institution which according to them is ‘recognized’. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner never concealed the fact and the nature of Course and the Institution from where she passed, was very much brought to the knowledge of the respondents at the very first opportunity. (10). There appears to be some substance in the petitioner’s contention that the impugned order is cryptic to the extent it says that the Institute from where the petitioner got her OT Course is not CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 7 – amongst the recognized Universities/Deemed Universities listed/circulated by the University Grants Commission on 30th June, 1994. Should it mean that the said Institute was recognized before 30th June, 1994? As noticed earlier, the petitioner passed out the one-year OT Course in the year 1977-78 and soon thereafter she was appointed by the respondents on ad hoc basis. It, thus, appears that earlier the respondents themselves were not sure about recognition of the said Course and recruited the petitioner as well as other several similarly-situated candidates in the Education Department. Some of uncontroverted instances have been referred to by the petitioner in Para 32 of the writ petition as well as Para 4 of her Re-joinder. The petitioner, to some extent has, therefore, made out a case of differential treatment meted out to her in utter disregard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (11). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P15) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the Policy/ Circular CWP No.1922 of 2009.doc - 8 – dated 26.10.1982 (Annexure P4) and/or dated

29.03.1985 (Annexure P5) and issue appropriate orders in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the consequential service benefits arising therefrom. Ordered accordingly. Dasti . (12). (13).

17.02.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE