Court dismissed the appeal of a lecturer seeking a declaration of continuing service under a Government Scheme. It held that her appointment was ad hoc and terminated upon expiry, and she was not in service when the supportive government memo was issued.
Suit dismissed; appeal dismissed; no declaration of continuing service granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.803 of 1996
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No.803 of 1996 Date of Decision: October 20, 2009
Harpreet Khatra
...........Appellant
Versus
Managing Committee Khalsa College for Women and others
..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr. Girish Agnihori, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents
**
Sabina, J.
Plaintiff-Harpreet Kaur filed a suit for declaration that she is entitled to be in the service of defendant No.1 under the Scheme E.D 2-II(5) sponsored by the Government for the development of Punjabi language and for providing job to Punjabi teacher in non Government affiliated College of the Punjab State and relief of mandatory injunction is also sought. The said suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jagraon vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.1993. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.1995. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.
The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 1 and 2 to of its judgment reads as under:-
RSA No.803 of 1996
2
“ 1.This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.93 passed by Shri Naginderjit Singh, Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Jagraon vide which he dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that she is validly selected and appointed Lecturer in Panjabi for teaching up to degree classes of the Khalsa College for Women Sidhwan Khurd, District Ludhaian and is in employment of defendant no.1 and 2 and she continues to be in service, as such, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any selection of any other candidate or making appointment of any other candidate in her place in pursuance of the advertisement issued by defendant no.3 in the SUNDAY TRIBUNE dated 16.7.1989. It was alleged by the appellant in the plaint that she is having excellent academic record. She passed her Matriculation Examination by securing 74.8 percent mark in first Division, Graduation by securing 62.15 percent marks, Honours in Panjabi by securing 57.3 marks, M.A. in Punjabi by securing 56.5 marks and M.Phil in Punjabi by securing 61.3 percent marks. She was appointed as a part time lecturer in Punjabi on the basis of her selection by the Selection Committee on 13.6.87 and she was issued appointment letter on 18.8.87. In pursuance of the said appointment letter she joined as a part time Lecturer with respondent no.1 . Her work and conduct was found to be satisfactory through the period she worked in the College. The principal issued certificates dated 3.3.88 and 16.8.1988 regarding her work and conduct being praise-worthy. The Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, Chandigarh, created
RSA No.803 of 1996
3
229 additional posts of lecturer in Panjabi under 95 percent deficit grant-in-aid scheme in private colleges. Out of the said posts two posts were sanctioned for the defendant College. The said posts were to be filled on regular basis. She submitted her application for the said posts. She was issued an interview letter on 1.8.1988 and asked to report for interview on 13.8.1988. She appeared before the Selection Committee and was duly selected by the Selection Committee and then she was appointed as Lecturer with defendant No.1. She joined her duties on 19.8.1988 and appointment letter was also issued in her favour on that day. She worked in the said College as a full time lecturer from 19.8.88 to 4.3.1989. On 4.3.1989 she was verbally told not to attend the duties in the College with effect from the next day. She was also told that since her services of length was less than 9 months she will be not paid any emoluments for the period of vacation and as and when her services would be required she would be called back. No written instructions were given to her inspite of her demand. No emoluments had been paid to he beyond 4.3.1989. Her appointment from 19.8.88 to February 28,1989 was duly approved by the Vice Chancellor of the Panjab University. The Director of Public Instructions vide memo dated 21.3.1989 addressed to all the principals of affiliated private Colleges in the State of Punjab conveyed that as the Government was likely to accord sanction shortly for the continuation of the additional posts of Lecturers, only those existing incumbents already working against the posts may be allowed to continue who had been duly
RSA No.803 of 1996
4
selected by the properly constituted Selection Committee. In view of the said instructions, she is to be deemed to be in continuous service. The defendants with a malafide intention issued an advertisement in the SUNDAY TRIBUNE which was published on 16.7.1989 inviting applications for the post of Panjabi Lecturer
. She contacted the Chairman of the Managing Committee and requested him to allow her to continue her as a Lecturer but she was informed that her previous appointment is deemed to have been cancelled and she should submit a fresh application in response to fresh advertisement. The issuance of the aforesaid advertisement by defendant no.3 is patently illegal. No notice of termination of services was given to her. No departmental proceedings were taken against her and that for all intend and purposes she continued to be in service. The defendants refused to accept her request. Hence the suit.
RSA No.803 of 1996
5
plaintiff herself applied for the interview but her merit was lower than the criteria fixed and, as such, she was not called for interview. The plaintiff had only a right of consideration and not of selection and she has tried to mislead the Court. Regarding the merits of the case, it was stated that the academic record of the plaintiff is a matter of record, the plaintiff was selected for the post of lecturer for a fixed tenure upto 20.2.1989 and she was relieved after the expiry of said period. For the academic year 1989-90, there were 3 sanctioned posts of Lecturers under 95 percent deficit aid scheme in the College. All the 3 said posts were sanctioned upto 28.2.1990 as their sanction has to be from year to year. The selection of the plaintiff was for a fixed tenure only upto February,1989. It was admitted that the work and conduction of the plaintiff was satisfactory. The appointment of the plaintiff being for a fixed tenure her appointment automatically lapsed after the expiry of said period. The sanction of the post was upto that date. There was no need to issue any notice regarding the termination of her services. It was denied that any assurance was given to the plaintiff that she will be called back in service. It was alleged that when on 21.3.1989 the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) issued the memo the plaintiff was no longer in service, so there was no question of her continuing in service. Advertisement was issued for filling up the vacancies during the academic session of 1989-90 the plaintiff applied for the same. Her application was considered but she was not called for interview as she did not fall within the zone of
RSA No.803 of 1996
6
considerations for interview on the ground that she was having less percentage than the candidate who were called for interview as per the criteria fixed by the Selection Committee. After the expiry of her period of employment, the plaintiff is not entitled to remain in service. No declaration can be given to her as claimed by her and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed
RSA No.803 of 1996
7
Admittedly,Plaintiff joined as a part time Punjabi Lecturer with effect from 13.8.1987. Vide order dated 18.8.1987 (Exhibit P4), it was further mentioned in the appointment letter that the post was purely temporary upto February 19,1988. Thereafter, plaintiff was appointed as a Lecturer in Punjabi Full time upto 28.2.1989 vide order dated 19.8.1988 (Exhibit P9). Her appointment was purely temporary on ad hoc basis. Plaintiff in terms of the said appointment letter ceased to work with the defendants with effect from 4.3.1989. Thereafter, reliance was placed by the plaintiff on letter Exhibit P2 dated 21.3.1989 which reads as under:-
"Reference this office Memo No.3/139-86 Gr.II(5) dated 24.3.1988 on the subject noted above vide which sanction of the Government covering posts created between 1.11.77 and 1.11.81 in the aided private colleges as a result of reviewing of 1.11.1981 from 1.10.1987 and additional 229 posts of Lecturers in Punjabi in these colleges from 1.8.1987 upto the year 1988-89 was conveyed to them.
However, when the said letter was issued, plaintiff was not more in service and as such, the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff could not draw any benefit from the said letter. When the said letter was issued, plaintiff
RSA No.803 of 1996 8 had already been relieved from her service on 4.3.1989. Thereafter, the College again advertised the post of Punjabi Lecturers for the Sessions 1989-90. Plaintiff applied for the same vide Exhibit D1. But apparently, she was not selected for the post of Lecturer. Since the services of the plaintiff came to an end in terms of the appointment letter, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(Sabina) Judge
October 20, 2009
arya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to continue in service under the Government Scheme E.C. 2-11(5) after being relieved on ad hoc basis.
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try this appeal regarding service dispute.
Whether the appellant was benefited by the government memo allowing incumbents to continue after her relief.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harpreet Khatra
Managing Committee Khalsa College for Women
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
