High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Shri Harjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 October, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Harjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 October, 2008
CWP NO.3624 OF 1986                            :1:



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH.




                 DATE OF DECISION:         22.10.2008




Shri Harjinder Singh                     ...Petitioner


                       VERSUS
State of Punjab and another            ...Respondents




                      CORAM

     HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI


PRESENT: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner

            Mr.S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab

Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Divisional

Manager (Stores) in the office of Divisional Manager, Punjab

Roadways, Jullundur in the pay scale of Rs.825-1580, purely on

temporary basis for a period of six months or till the candidates

recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission joins,

whichever is earlier, vide order dated 16.4.1984 (Annexure P-1).

The petitioner continued for a period of about two years and

thereafter his services were dispensed with w.e.f. 6.7.1986. The
CWP NO.3624 OF 1986 :2:

present petition came to be filed by the petitioner on 11.7.1987,

seeking setting aside of his termination. It is stated that the name of

the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was

selected on the basis of interview. The petitioner was also eligible

having Mechanical Engineering degree to his credit which was the

prescribed qualification for recruitment to the post of Assistant

Divisional Manager. It is admitted in the writ petition that his

appointment was against direct recruit quota and admittedly, no

advertisement was issued inviting applications from all eligible

candidates.

The claim of the petitioner is, however, resisted by the

respondents, primarily on the ground that the petitioner’s

appointment was on purely temporary basis for a period of six

months or till the candidate recommended by the Punjab Public

Service Commission joins, whichever is earlier which fact is also not

disputed by the petitioner. Even though the termination of the

petitioner was stayed on 15.7.1986 by this Court, but fact remains

that the petitioner was terminated prior to the passing of the

aforesaid order. According to petitioner’s own admission, his

appointment was against direct recruit quota and admittedly, no

advertisement was issued inviting applications from all eligible

candidates. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner is not in

consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The issue is squarely covered by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of J & K Public Service Commission etc., v. Dr.

Narinder Mohan and others etc. AIR 1994 SC 1808 wherein
CWP NO.3624 OF 1986 :3:

following observations have been made:-

“7……. The rule prescribes direct

recruitment/promotion by selection as the mode

of recruitment which would be done only by PSC

or promotion committee duly constituted and by

no other body. Therefore, ad hoc employee should

be replaced as expeditiously as possible by direct

recruits. A little leeway to make ad hoc

appointment due to emergent exigencies does not

clothe the executive government with power to

relax the recruitment or to regularise such

appointment nor to claim such appointments to be

regular or in accordance with rules. Back door ad

hoc appointments at the behest of power source or

otherwise and recruitment according to rules are

mutually antagonistic and strange bed partners.

They cannot co-exist in the same sheath. The

former is in negation of fair play. The latter are

the products of order and regularity. Every

eligible person not necessarily be fit to be

appointed to a post or office under the State,

selection according to rules by a propertly

constituted commission and fitment for

appointment assures fairness in selection and

inhibits arbitrariness in appointments. In view of

the Explanation-b to Rule 4, the ad hoc
CWP NO.3624 OF 1986 :4:

appointments to any post in any of the three wings

of the services under the rules are therefore de

hors the rules. Appointments of the respondents 1

to 6 cannot be held to be in accordance with the

rules.”

In any case, this petition is pending since 1986 and at this

belated stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

20.5.2008
MFK
CWP NO.3624 OF 1986 :5: