Gurnam Kaur, Clerk Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chandigarh and others vs Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board

D.S. Tewatia, J.—The services of the Petitioners were terminated by order dated 27.1.1981 (Annexure P-5) the operative part whereof is in the following terms:-

OFFICE ORDER No. 52, (1981)

The services of below mentioned clerks are terminated in accordance with the terms of their appointment w.e.f. 31.1.81.

Sr. No.

Name of Employee

Place of posting.

1.

Smt. GurnamKaur, Clerk

Construction Branch Mandi Board.

2.

Miss UshaRani, Clerk

Construction Branch, Mandi Board.

3.

Miss HarmeshKaur, Clerk

Assistant Engineer, Mandi Board. Division Ropar.

4.

Miss RajRani, Clerk

Construction Branch, Mandi Board.

5.

Smt. RanjodhKaur, Clerk

Construction Branch, Mandi Board.

Chandigarh 27.1.1981.

Sd/-

(Amarjit Singh) Secretary

The Petitioners have alleged that their services have been terminated for the reason that they did not satisfy the requisite qualifications prescribed in Annexure P 4 Since the Petitioners duly satisfied the requisite qualification, which were prescribed at the time of their selection and appointment, so their services, maintained the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, could not legally be terminated on the ground that, they did not satisfy the qualification for the post, later on prescribed by the Committee vide its report Annexure P. 4. The Respondents in their reply have taken the stand that the allegations that their services Lad been terminated as a result of the acceptance and implementation of the recommendations of Committee made in Annexure P 4 is not correct The positive case pleaded in the written statement is that their services had been terminated in accordance with the terms of their appointment Annexure P 2 with envisages termination of the services at any time without assigning any reason.

The Petitioner filed an additional affidavit by way of replication stating therein that the stand taken by the Respondent in the written statement is at variance with the actual orders on the file of the Board and that according to the decision of the Board service of the Petitioner were terminated expressly for the reason that they did not satisfy the requisite qualifications. In view of the assertion made in the additional affidavit the counsel for the Board was required to furnish the original record of the Board. The decision of the Board is in the noting file which is in Gurmukhi and when rendered in English is in the following terms:

Case has been perused carefully It is clear that the appointments were not proper Firstly the prevailing prescribed procedure for regular appointments has not been followed. Secondly keeping in view the ban imposed by the State Government, appointment on regular basis were not possible Besides this it is also noticeable that the services of those clerks appointed on adhoc basis (for 89 days only) on purely short term basis, who did not fulfil the requsite qualifications prescribed by the Pay Revision Committee appointed "by the Government, bad to be dispensed with. Had the employees of this list been appointed on short term basis, as should have been done, then out of these employees, the services of those who do not fulfil the requisite qualification would have been terminated. On perusal four or five employees in this list appear to be of this nature. From this angle also, it seems proper that the appointments made in this case should be regulated in proper way.

The following action will be proper in this case:-

(a) The services of these 5 employees who do not fulfil the requisite qualification should be terminated in the end of Jan., 1981.

In this connection it will have to be checked up whether Miss Usha Rani (Sr No. 6) is matriculation Ist Div. and whether her appointment could be made ?

(b) The probation period of remaining 6 or 7 employees who fulfil the requisite qualification be made two years (which is normally for the appointment by direct recruitment.)

Sd/- Secretary 2-1-81

Perusal of the Board''s order would show that it after pointing out the fact that the appointment for more than 89 days was against the Government instructions and then directed the termination of the services of such Clerks as did not satisfy the qualification prescribed by the committee. The Board, however, permitted to continue in service those Clerks as had satisfied the given qualification, even though they too were recruited for more than 89 days as was the case with the Petitioners.

Thus, it is apparent that what weighed with Board was the possession of the qualification of the given employee for determining as to who is to be retained and whose services are to be terminated.

The Petitioners admittedly satisfied the requisite qualifications when they were appointed to the post. Their services cannot be terminated merely on the ground that later on higher qualifications for the said post came to be prescribed. It is the employees who were to be appointed after the date of the report of the committee prescribing the higher qualifications who had to satisfy the higher qualifications and not the employees who were already in service and when appointed did satisfy the prevailing requisite qualifications.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order Annexure F.5 is quashed. Since the implementation of the impugned order has been stayed, so they are continuing in service and therefore, nothing more is required to be said regarding their continuity of service. The writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.