IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.834 of 2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: May 28, 2015
Dalbir Singh and another
...Appellants
versus
Seema Devi and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.
Present: Mr.Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Vibhav Jain, Advocate, for the appellants.
-.-
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?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This letters patent appeal impugns the
interlocutory order dated 11.05.2015 of the learned Single
judge, based upon the statement of Chief Secretary, Haryana
as well as the Advocate General, Haryana, who apprised the
learned Single Judge that 4073 Guest Faculty Teachers were
identified as surplus and they shall be treated as a separate
class for the purpose of dispensing with their services in
accordance with law. The order further records that such
action shall be taken as per the undertaking given by the State
before the Court at the time of passing of order dated
30.03.2011 in CWP No.6090 of 2010 (Tilak Raj versus The State
of Haryana and others. The said order was duly upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[2] The interlocutory order under appeal further refers
to the Government letter dated 06.05.2015 proposing the time
schedule within which the State is said to have promised to
finalize the recruitment for appointment to the post of
PGT/TGT.[3] The learned Single Judge has observed that before
initiating the exercise of dispensing with the services of surplus
staff, a short notice of 24 hours be given which may be
published in local, regional and national newspapers.
[4] The above-stated order of the learned Single Judge
is assailed by the Guest Faculty Teachers who have been
allegedly declared/identified as surplus. According to them,
the subject order as well as the previous orders passed by
learned Single Judge from time to time causing imminent
threat of termination of their services, are unwarranted and
deserve to be set-aside on various grounds including; (i) the
affidavit filed by Chief Secretary, Haryana, clearly suggests that
4073 Guest Faculty Teachers, who were identified as surplus in
the year 2012, are also required to be retained in service for
the time being as the requisite number of PGT/TGT are yet to
be appointed on regular basis,(ii) the State Government does
not want to terminate services of surplus Guest Faculty
Teachers,
(iii) the appellants are entitled to continue in service
till they are replaced by regularly recruited teachers, (iv) the
directions issued by learned Single Judge are discriminatory as
in other case, i.e., CWP No.6493 of 2015 (Raj Kumar and others
versus State of Haryana and others), the writ-petitioners, who
are also identified as surplus Guest Faculty Teachers, have
been given breathing time of 15 days to submit their reply to
the show cause notice, if their services are to be dispensed with, whereas in the case of appellants, such time has been
restricted to 24 hours only.
[5] Having given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions, we are unable to accept the same. We say so for
the reasons that
(i) in terms of the directions issued by this
Court in Tilak Raj's case (supra), services of Guest Faculty
Teachers were required to be dispensed with by 31.03.2012
and that order was duly upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
However, the cut off date was extended from time to time for
one or the other reason; (ii) the learned Single Judge has
found no rhyme or reason for extending such date hitherto as
their appears to be lack of bonafide on the part of State
authorities in not honouring the previous Court directions
which have attained finality,
(iii) there appears to be some sort
of collusion between Guest Faculty Teachers and the
authorities, for the reasons best known to the later, who have
been taking one or the other stances, sometimes contradictory
also, with a view to retain the Guest Faculty Teachers instead
of making regular recruitments,
(iv) there are concerted
efforts to defy the Court's directions and create a situation
where the Court becomes helpless in giving time bound
directions. The resultant effect is that from last more than
three years the Guest Faculty Teachers, who in total are
exceeding 16000 and out of whom 4073 have been identified
as surplus, are still retained in service, may be so as to preserve
the vote bank or for the reasons other than merit,
administrative or public interest.
[6] The State's renewed version that the services of
Guest Faculty Teachers who were identified as surplus are also
needed, is worth rejection as the authorities have been taking
inconsistent and self-contradictory stand with a view to wriggle
out the effected directions issued by this Court in Tilak Raj's
case (supra). In any case, nothing precludes the appellants or
the State Government from making out such a case before the
learned Single Judge.
[7] The learned Single Judge appears to be satisfied
and so is the impression gathered by this Court that unless the
State government is forced to comply with the previous
directions, it shall never adhere to any time schedule for
regular recruitments as many a times, such type of proposals
put up before the Court were allowed to lapse, most of the
time deliberately.
[8] The State Government, if would honour the time
schedule now proposed before the learned Single Judge,needless to say that the appellants or for that matter, other
Guest Faculty Teachers would get a fair opportunity to
compete for regular appointments. It would, thus, be in the
interest of the students community and the appellants that the
regular recruitment process is expedited and available
vacancies are filled up in accordance with law.
[9] As regard to the differential treatment in the
matter of granting time to respond to the show cause notices,
we clarify that notwithstanding the orders which may be
differently worded, all the Guest Faculty Teachers would be
given short notice of 24 hours only in terms of the order dated
May 11, 2015 and not beyond that.
[10] For the reasons afore-stated, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge.
[11] Dismissed.
[12] Needless to say that the appellants shall be free to
avail the liberty granted to them by the learned Single Judge
on 25.05.2015 in CWP No.10861 of 2015 (Sunil Kumar and
others versus State of Haryana and others or by this Court on
07.05.2015 in LPA No.711 of 2015 (Balwan Singh and others
versus State of Haryana and others).
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
[P.B.BAJANTHRI]
JUDGE
May 28, 2015
CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.834 of 2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: May 28, 2015
Dalbir Singh and another
...Appellants
versus
Seema Devi and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.
Present: Mr.Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Vibhav Jain, Advocate, for the appellants.
-.-
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?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This letters patent appeal impugns the
interlocutory order dated 11.05.2015 of the learned Single
judge, based upon the statement of Chief Secretary, Haryana
as well as the Advocate General, Haryana, who apprised the
learned Single Judge that 4073 Guest Faculty Teachers were
identified as surplus and they shall be treated as a separate
class for the purpose of dispensing with their services in
accordance with law. The order further records that such
action shall be taken as per the undertaking given by the State
before the Court at the time of passing of order dated
30.03.2011 in CWP No.6090 of 2010 (Tilak Raj versus The State
of Haryana and others. The said order was duly upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[2] The interlocutory order under appeal further refers
to the Government letter dated 06.05.2015 proposing the time
schedule within which the State is said to have promised to
finalize the recruitment for appointment to the post of
PGT/TGT.[3] The learned Single Judge has observed that before
initiating the exercise of dispensing with the services of surplus
staff, a short notice of 24 hours be given which may be
published in local, regional and national newspapers.
[4] The above-stated order of the learned Single Judge
is assailed by the Guest Faculty Teachers who have been
allegedly declared/identified as surplus. According to them,
the subject order as well as the previous orders passed by
learned Single Judge from time to time causing imminent
threat of termination of their services, are unwarranted and
deserve to be set-aside on various grounds including; (i) the
affidavit filed by Chief Secretary, Haryana, clearly suggests that
4073 Guest Faculty Teachers, who were identified as surplus in
the year 2012, are also required to be retained in service for
the time being as the requisite number of PGT/TGT are yet to
be appointed on regular basis,(ii) the State Government does
not want to terminate services of surplus Guest Faculty
Teachers,
(iii) the appellants are entitled to continue in service
till they are replaced by regularly recruited teachers, (iv) the
directions issued by learned Single Judge are discriminatory as
in other case, i.e., CWP No.6493 of 2015 (Raj Kumar and others
versus State of Haryana and others), the writ-petitioners, who
are also identified as surplus Guest Faculty Teachers, have
been given breathing time of 15 days to submit their reply to
the show cause notice, if their services are to be dispensed with, whereas in the case of appellants, such time has been
restricted to 24 hours only.
[5] Having given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions, we are unable to accept the same. We say so for
the reasons that
(i) in terms of the directions issued by this
Court in Tilak Raj's case (supra), services of Guest Faculty
Teachers were required to be dispensed with by 31.03.2012
and that order was duly upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
However, the cut off date was extended from time to time for
one or the other reason; (ii) the learned Single Judge has
found no rhyme or reason for extending such date hitherto as
their appears to be lack of bonafide on the part of State
authorities in not honouring the previous Court directions
which have attained finality,
(iii) there appears to be some sort
of collusion between Guest Faculty Teachers and the
authorities, for the reasons best known to the later, who have
been taking one or the other stances, sometimes contradictory
also, with a view to retain the Guest Faculty Teachers instead
of making regular recruitments,
(iv) there are concerted
efforts to defy the Court's directions and create a situation
where the Court becomes helpless in giving time bound
directions. The resultant effect is that from last more than
three years the Guest Faculty Teachers, who in total are
exceeding 16000 and out of whom 4073 have been identified
as surplus, are still retained in service, may be so as to preserve
the vote bank or for the reasons other than merit,
administrative or public interest.
[6] The State's renewed version that the services of
Guest Faculty Teachers who were identified as surplus are also
needed, is worth rejection as the authorities have been taking
inconsistent and self-contradictory stand with a view to wriggle
out the effected directions issued by this Court in Tilak Raj's
case (supra). In any case, nothing precludes the appellants or
the State Government from making out such a case before the
learned Single Judge.
[7] The learned Single Judge appears to be satisfied
and so is the impression gathered by this Court that unless the
State government is forced to comply with the previous
directions, it shall never adhere to any time schedule for
regular recruitments as many a times, such type of proposals
put up before the Court were allowed to lapse, most of the
time deliberately.
[8] The State Government, if would honour the time
schedule now proposed before the learned Single Judge,needless to say that the appellants or for that matter, other
Guest Faculty Teachers would get a fair opportunity to
compete for regular appointments. It would, thus, be in the
interest of the students community and the appellants that the
regular recruitment process is expedited and available
vacancies are filled up in accordance with law.
[9] As regard to the differential treatment in the
matter of granting time to respond to the show cause notices,
we clarify that notwithstanding the orders which may be
differently worded, all the Guest Faculty Teachers would be
given short notice of 24 hours only in terms of the order dated
May 11, 2015 and not beyond that.
[10] For the reasons afore-stated, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge.
[11] Dismissed.
[12] Needless to say that the appellants shall be free to
avail the liberty granted to them by the learned Single Judge
on 25.05.2015 in CWP No.10861 of 2015 (Sunil Kumar and
others versus State of Haryana and others or by this Court on
07.05.2015 in LPA No.711 of 2015 (Balwan Singh and others
versus State of Haryana and others).
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
[P.B.BAJANTHRI]
JUDGE
May 28, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment