Neeraj Verma and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

That the impugned notification dated December 30,2002 at Annexure A-5 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That if during the pendency of original Application there is any interruption in the services of applicants as Lecturers in college cadre, in that event they may be directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

Vide notification dated 25.7.2002 (Annexure A-4) services of adhoc lecturers (college cadre) including the petitioners were regularised. Said notification itself stipulated the following conditions:

ii) That these appointees will be placed at the initial of the pay scale prescribed for newly appointed lecturers, subject to the conditions that they are qualified as per R&P Rules in vogue, on the date of their regularisation.

vi) That the regularisation of these adhoc lecturers shall be subject to the final decision of the Hon''ble High Court in CWP No. 739/2000 titled Prem Bharadwaj Vs. State filed against the order of the Hon''ble HP Admn.Tribunal on OA No. 1842/94 Ram Lal Markanda vs. State on 28.5.2000.

Annexure A-4 was however withdrawn by the Government in terms of notification dated 30-12-2002 (Annexure A-5) for the reason that some of the Lecturers, including the petitioners, did not either possess requisite educational qualification or did not fulfill other eligibility criteria laid down under the Recruitment and promotion Rules framed in relation to the post in question.

It is the petitioners'' contention that their regularisation in terms of Annexure A-4 was pursuant to the instructions issued by the Government on 30-11-1996 (Annexure A-3),which inter alia, contain the following conditions:-

Services of all such adhoc employees who have completed 5 years continuous service on or before the date of issue of these instructions shall be regularised subject to the number of vacancies available;

They must possess the essential educational qualifications i.e both academic and professional and should be within the age limits as prescribed in the Recruitment and promotion Rules at the time of adhoc appointment;

Except for reiterating the stand taken by the State in Annexure A-4, respondents in their reply have not responded to this aspect of the matter at all. Parties have neither placed the Recruitment and promotion Rules, in vogue on record nor have the respondents explained as to which of the eligibility criteria/conditions laid down in the rules have not been fulfilled by the petitioners. Except for making these bald averments, respondents have neither placed any additional material nor produced any records to establish the same.

Bare reading of Annexure A-3 would prima facie show that the eligibility of the petitioners is to be seen as on the date on which they were given appointments on adhoc basis and not the date on which their services were regularised.

Be that as it may be, applicability of Annexure A-3 to the relevant facts of each of the petitioners is to be considered by the authorities. Significantly, according to the petitioners, Annexure A-5 has not been implemented pursuant to the interim order passed in this petition on 9.1.2003 whereby parties were directed to maintain status quo. The said order is in operation till date.

As such, Annexure A-5 is quashed with a direction to respondent No.1 to examine the case of each of the petitioners with regard to the applicability of communication dated 30.11.1996 (Annexure A-3) to the facts of each of the petitioners fulfillment of the conditions laid down in Annexure A-4 or the rules in vogue framed by the Government. Needful be positively done after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.