Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avrinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 October, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136795
CWP No. 28170 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(118) CWP No. 28170 of 2024
Date of Decision : 19.10.2024
Avrinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Madhav Pokhrel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is that the grant of benefit of working on ad-hoc basis has wrongly
been denied by the respondents while passing the impugned order dated
25.05.2022 (Annexure P-18).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
initially appointed as ETT/JBT Teacher on regular basis vide order dated
11.03.1991 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
thereafter the petitioner had competed for the post of Science Master in
pursuance to the Advertisement, which was issued in the year 1992 and after
being selected, he joined the said post on 09.04.1994. The said selection was
challenged on the ground that the candidates beyond the number of posts
advertised have been appointed and this Court had set-aside the selection of
the candidates, which was beyond the number of posts advertised. The
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136795
judgment of this Court by which the selection of the candidates, who were
appointed beyond the number of posts advertised was set-aside, same was
upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 23952 of 1996
titled as Surinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others,
decided on 27.08.1997.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the
said judgment, even the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner was set-aside
on 13.11.1997 (Annexure P-7) and the petitioner remained out of service and
ultimately, he made a request for allowing him to join on his previous post as
a JBT Teacher, which was allowed in February, 1999 and thereafter, he was
again promoted as a Master in the year 2001 and retired while attaining the
age of superannuation on 31.10.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the claim of the
petitioner is that the period from the year 1994 to 1997 be treated as a valid
period for grant of service benefit in the Cadre of Master, which benefit has
been declined by the respondents by the impugned order dated 25.05.2022
(Annexure P-18).
5. Keeping in view the advance copy given, the State has appeared
and the learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that in the present
case, the petitioner's ad-hoc appointment from the year 1994 to 1997 cannot
be given benefit in the Cadre of Master as, the petitioner was promoted on
the said post in March, 2001, hence, no benefit of his direct recruitment
which was subsequently changed to the ad-hoc appointment, can be given to
the petitioner.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136795
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the
candidates, who were not given the said benefit, had approached this Court
by filing CWP No. 18673 of 2012 titled as Kewal Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and others, decided on 03.11.2014, which benefit has been extended
to the said persons, hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of the
benefit.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. It is a conceded fact between the parties that the selection of the
petitioner to the post of Master in the year 1994 was set-aside by this Court,
which judgment has already attained finality in the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India. No benefit of the said appointment can be given to the petitioner,
especially when after the said judgment, the petitioner again went back to
join his initial post of JBT Teacher and was promoted on his seniority in
March, 2001 in the Master Cadre. That being so, if the claim of the petitioner
is that he should be granted the benefit of the service in the Master Cadre
from the year 1994 to 1997, the same will create anomaly as, the petitioner
will be getting promotion and other benefits ahead of his seniors, who were
working in the JBT Cadre.
9. Even otherwise, once the appointment of the petitioner was held
to be bad and the same was set-aside, no benefit of the said service can be
allowed in favour of the petitioner, especially when the said service was on
ad-hoc basis and it is only after a gap of more than 04 years, on the basis of
seniority in the JBT Cadre, the petitioner only got promotion in the Cadre of
Master.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136795
10. With regard to the assertion that the benefit has been granted to
the similarly situated employees by this Court in Kewal Singh's case (supra),
the same is also not correct. In Kewal Singh's case (supra), the ad-hoc
appointment in the Cadre of Master was regularized by the State and there
was no gap between the ad-hoc appointment and regularization of services in
case of Kewal Singh's case (supra) and it was only under these
circumstances, the benefit of ad-hoc appointment was given whereas, in the
case of the petitioner, after the ad-hoc appointment was terminated, the
petitioner was reverted back to his JBT Cadre, wherein, the petitioner in
Master Cadre got promotion after serving for another period of two years in
the JBT Cadre on the basis of his seniority in the JBC Cadre, which facts are
not there in Kewal Singh's case (supra). Hence, the claim that the petitioner
is similarly situated as per the petitioner in Kewal Singh's case (supra), is
incorrect.
11. No other argument is raised.
12. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in the present petition.
13. Dismissed.
October 19, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
