A.S. Gill, J.@mdashBy means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certioriari for quashing the orders dated 31.3.2000 (Annexures P-2 to P-4) passed by the Block Education Officer, Charkhi Dadri (Bhiwani) and further for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as kahar and regularise his services.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was duly selected as a pan time kahar on 27.5.1988 and joined his service on 6.7.1988. He continuously worked on the post till 1998, when the petitioners approached this Court. The State Govt. framed policy of regularisation of class IV part time employee vide policy Annexure P1 whereby it was decided that the services of part time class IV employees be regularised against regular sanctioned vacant post if they fulfil the requisite qualification prescribed for regular class IV employees in the Haryana State Secondary Education Field Office (Group D) Service Rules, 1998 and who were recruited through Employment Exchange having atleast the experience of three years on their respective posts and the candidates who were recruited on part time basis directly having the experience of 6 years on their respective posts, were to be regularised. In the year 1998 number of part time class IV employees approached this Court seeking the regularisation of their services on the ground that those who have worked continuously for the last 10-15 years their services be regularised. During the pendency of writ petition No. 643 of 1998 policy Annexure P-1, was framed and produced before this Court whereupon necessary directions were issued by this Court for considering the case of the part time employees, for regularisation of their services in view of the policy framed. On the basis of the directions of this Court necessary directions were issued on 5.3.1998 by the respondents for consideration of cases of part time employees for regularising their services keeping in view the policy dated 30.12.1998 (Annexure P-1). The case of the petitioner was considered but was rejected arbitrarily by the re spondents vide letter dated 31.3.2000 (Annexure P-2). Besides, vide impugned letter of the same date (An nexure P-3), the respondent-authorities also issued di rections of dispensing with the services of part time ka- hars after 31.3.2000. The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned orders Annexure P-2 and P-3 were issued by the respondents on the basis of instruc tions issued by respondent No. 2 the Director, Primary Education, Haryana. The services of the petitioners were dispensed with on 31.3.2000 vide Annexure P-4. The respondents, on the other hand retained the serv ices of Gurdeep Singh who was junior in the select list and also regularised his services vide order dated 5.8.1999 thereby violating the petitioner''s right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The pe titioner further claimed that his date of birth being 12.5.1963 he was only 23 years of age when he was in itially appointed as part time kahar in July 1986. Ever since from the date of appointment he continued in his service and the respondents cannot claim that his serv ices cannot be regularised because he has become over age.
3. In the written statement by way of preliminary objections, plea has been taken that as per instructions dated 21.12.1999 of the Director Secondary/Primary Education, Haryana, no appointment of class IV part time employee was permissible except "sweeper" in the institution, where the post of sweeper was sanctioned and as such since the petitioner was working on the post of kahar his services were rightly dispensed with. It is further claimed that the petitioner cannot be reinstated nor his services can be regularised according to the policy dreamed by the Director Education, Haryana, Annexure P-1. Since, according to the policy decision only those employees who possessed/fulfil the prescribed condition of Service Rules, 1998, for regular class IV employees, can be considered for regularisation, for being employed in the institutions, which are up-graded and regular post of class IV employees consequently became available. Since the petitioner on the date of consideration of his case for regularisation was beyond permissible age of 35 years for appointment in Govt. service as per rules, his case has rightly been rejected for regularisation. Even on merits similar pleas have been taken and it has been submitted that the services of Pardeep Singh were regularised since he was below 35 years of age on the date his case was considered for regularisation. By the impugned order dated 31.3.2000, copy Annexure P-2, the case of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected mainly on the ground firstly -that he was over age as the permissible age limit under the Service Rules is 35 years and secondly - that no post was available for regularisation of his service.
4. In an identical case titled Baldu Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others 2000 (3) SCT 288 (P&H) (DB) : 2000(2) RSJ 160 (DB), this Court has considered these two objections raised by the State Govt. in respect of regularisation of a part time class IV employee i.e. the age limit as well as the non-availability of the post and rejected both the pleas. In that case, the Division Bench observed as under :-
"In this regard it may be pointed out that the petitioners were within the permissible limit of age when they were recruited in the respondent-department and were appointed on their respective posts. They became over age and crossed the aforesaid age limit while they rendered service in the department. In this view of the matter, since the petitioners at the time of their initial appointment were within the permissible age limit, the case for regularisation of their services cannot be declined on the ground that they become over age while rendering service with the respondent- department."
On the second ground it was observed that since the petitioner continued serving for more than 10 yeas, it cannot be said that their services cannot be regularised because of non-availability of required posts.
5. In the instant case admittedly the petitioner was in-dueled in the employment of the State as part time kahar on 6.7.1988 and his services were dispensed with only on 31.3.2000, thus, he served for more than 10 years continuously on the post and was within the permissible age for entering into Govt. service. Admittedly, his date of birth is 12.5.1963. The very fact that the petitioner continued serving for such a long period obviously implied that the work was of continuous nature. The decision Baldu Ram and others (supra) is fully applicable to the case ofthe petitioner and as such on facts and law, the impugned orders are required to be quashed.
6. The termination/dispensing with the services of the petitioner has been made on two grounds mentioned in Annexure P-2 which stands rejected by the decision of this Court in Baldu Ram''s case (supra).
7. As a result of foregoing discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The termination orders dated 31.3.2000 Annexures P-2 to P-4 are accordingly quashed. The petitioner will be deemed to be in service if no such orders were passed. However, the respondents are directed to consider the case ofthe petitioner for regularisation of his service in accordance with the Govt. policy Annexure P-l in the light of the observations above and the decision in Baldu Ram''s case. Compliance of these directions shall be made within a period of four months of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
8.Petition allowed.
