Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamlesh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 August, 2024
CWP-5282-2000 (O&M) 1
2024. PRHC 108362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.205 CWP-5282-2000 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.08.2024
Kamlesh .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG Haryana.
3 2 2
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari
quashing the order/letter dated 29.01.2000, Annexure P-2; and a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner's service in
terms of policy dated 30.12.1998, Annexure P-4.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner was working as a part-time Water Carrier (kahar) in Government
Girls High School, village Purkhas, district Sonepat, from 01.04.1991, and
worked as such till 29.02.2000. She was relieved from duties pursuant to
instructions dated 29.01.2000, issued by the second respondent/Director,
Secondary Education, on the ground that petitioner's services were no longer
required. In fact, she was illegally relieved and was entitled to regularisation
in terms of policy, dated 30.12.1998, as she fulfilled the requisite conditions
of working as part-time employee for six years. In support of the
contentions, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Brij
Pal Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2021(6) SLR 220.
MANINDER
2024.08.28 18:27
CWP-5282-2000 (O&M) 2
3. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the
petition is not maintainable since the order dated 01.03.2000, Annexure R-1,
whereby the petitioner was relieved from duty by the Headmaster, has not
been challenged. He further contended that part-time employees, including
the petitioner, had been engaged as per the existing requirement by the Head
of the institution concerned, and were being paid salaries at the rates notified
by Deputy Commissioner annually. Prior sanction to extend their services
was required. The petitioner had to be relieved from duty because sanction
for her engagement lapsed on 29.02.2000, and it was not renewed/extended.
She is not entitled to regularisation as there was no regular sanctioned vacant
Class-IV post in the School where she had been working.
5. The petitioner had been working in the Government Girls High
School as part-time Water Carrier. She was relieved vide office order dated
01.03.2000, as sanction to extend her services was not granted. This fact has
not been disputed by the petitioner. Further, the policy, dated 30.12.1998,
required as a mandatory condition that part-time Class-[V employees were
to be considered for regularisation against sanctioned vacant posts provided
they had at least six years experience on their posts. As per specific
averment by the respondents there was no regular sanctioned vacant
Class-IV post in the School against which the petitioner could have been
considered for regularisation. This fact has also not been disputed, nor is
there any material/document on record establishing that there was any
vacant Class-IV post in the School at the relevant time. It is also a conceded
position that the petitioner is out of service since 01.03.2000. The judgment
in Brij Pal Sharma case (supra) has no application to the facts of the instant
case, since the petitioners therein had been working in the department for
CWP-5282-2000 (O&M) 3
2024. PRHHC 1083
more than ten to twenty years, and their appointment was made against
sanctioned posts in accordance with rules.
6. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petitioner's claim, and
the petition stands dismissed.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of as having been rendered infructuous.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA)
JUDGE
14.08.2024
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned__:: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
