Randhir Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, decided on & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Nain, DAG Haryana-State. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

#1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-11) whereby the service of petitioner has been terminated from the post of Art Education Assistant under HKRNL on the ground of lesser verified experience for Job Level-3, whereas similarly situated candidates possessing the same qualifications and even lesser experience than petitioner are continuing in service in view of the order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-16). Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 5 to reinstate petitioner to the post of Art CWP-16813-2026 2 Education Assistant on the principle of parity along with all consequential benefits. Further during pendency of present writ petition impugned order dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-11) be stayed.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P-3). It is submitted that the deployment policy dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) prescribed the essential educational qualifications for the post of Art Education Assistant as Matriculation, 10+2 with Diploma in Art and Craft, along with Hindi up to Matric standard. The petitioner fulfilled all the prescribed eligibility conditions, being possessed of the requisite Diploma in Art and Craft as well as more than nine years of experience in the relevant field. Consequently, the petitioner was offered appointment as Art Education Assistant through the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited (HKRNL) vide offer letter dated 15.08.2022 (Annexure P-5) and joined her duties on 22.08.2022, as is evident from Annexure P-9. An identity card was also issued in her favour by the respondents (Annexure P-10), thereby acknowledging her engagement.

2.1 It is further contended that, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, her services were terminated vide order dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-11) on the ground of "less verified experience", without issuance of any show cause notice, without affording any opportunity of hearing and without conducting any inquiry. It is submitted that the CWP-16813-2026 3 impugned action is arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law.

2.2 Learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP-29043-2022, Randhir Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-16), wherein this Court held that experience was merely a criterion for grant of preference and not an essential eligibility condition for appointment. It is contended that once neither the advertisement nor the deployment policy prescribed ten years' experience as an essential qualification, the respondents could not have introduced such a condition subsequently to deprive the petitioner of the appointment already offered to her.

2.3 It is further submitted that the impugned termination, having been effected without issuance of any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, is contrary to the settled principles of natural justice and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others v. Brijesh Kumar & Another, 2024 INSC 638, wherein it has been held that even in the case of contractual employment, a punitive termination without complying with the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained.

2.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and others v. Dr. Manu and another, 2023 SCC CWP-16813-2026 4 OnLine SC 640, to contend that a substantive amendment cannot be applied retrospectively so as to validate or justify an action already taken, unless the amendment expressly or by necessary implication provides for retrospective operation. It is submitted that the amendment dated 26.10.2023 is prospective in nature and, therefore, cannot be invoked to sustain the petitioner's termination dated 31.08.2022.

2.5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, without pressing the present writ petition on merits, the petitioner would be satisfied if the present writ petition is treated as a comprehensive representation and respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in the light of judgment rendered by this Court in Randhir Singh (supra), after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with law, within a stipulated period.

#4. Notice of motion. Mr. Harish Nain, learned Deputy Advocate General, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents-State and submits that he no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

#5. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent CWP-16813-2026 5 No.2/competent authority the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in the light of aforementioned judgments, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

#6. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to him forthwith by respondents/competent authority.

#7. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner is offered reinstatement pursuant to the decision taken by the respondents/competent authority, she shall not be entitled to any back wages or salary for the period she remained out of service.

#8. Any deviation from or non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court shall entitle the petitioner to move an appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiation of contempt proceedings against the erring officials in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands

#9. disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

03.07.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable. :