IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 5859 of 2008
Date of Decision: February 11, 2009
Jai Parkash ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee,Senior DAG, Haryana
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J.
The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondents
No.6 to 17 to the post of watchman in the Public Health Department, Sub
Division Indri, District Karnal on the allegation that these appointments
were made without issuing any advertisement.
In reply this action has been defended on the ground that the
posts were term appointments and without any element of regular
appointment to a public post and that as and when regular appointment
would be made, the same shall be done by way of inviting applications from
the public. It is further mentioned that there were urgent requirements for
these persons and, therefore, necessary requisition was placed on the notice
board of the office. No written statement has been filed on behalf of
CWP No. 5859 of 2008 -2-
respondents No.6 to 17 despite having been served.
I am afraid the stand taken by the respondents is not worthy of
credence. This kind of short cut can be tolerated in the case of a genuine
exigency/emergency where some person may be required to be appointed
for a few months to tide over a particular moment. In State of Karnataka
V. Uma Devi reported as 2006(4) SCC 1 it was held as under:-
“A sovereign Government, considering the economic situation
in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded
from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on
daily wages. Going by a law newly enacted, the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act,2005, the object is to give
employment to at least one member of a family for hundred
days in a year, on pay9ing wages as fixed under that Act. But, a
regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be
rresto0red to,when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular
point of ti8me,are to be filled up and the filling up of those
vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on
patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must
be the rule.”
Now these persons have continued in service for the last
almost three years. This is surely not a case where the respondents are
justified in ousting other eligible persons who may be desirous of vying for
these jobs, ephemeral as they may be. The continuance of these persons for
a period of almost three years clearly reveals that even though the
assignments may be described as term appointments yet the work against
CWP No. 5859 of 2008 -3-which such persons have been appointed cannot be termed as transient work
which can be filled up in such a roughshod manner.
In the circumstances the appointments of the private
respondents are set aside and the official respondents are directed to fill up
these posts by way of inviting applications from the public within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Respondents No.6 to 17shall be permitted to continue till the deadline fixed
by this Court is over and thereafter their engagement with the official
respondents will come to an end.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
February 11 , 2009
sunita