ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 16.05.2011, rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that order dated 04.04.2006 (P-7) passed by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Agondh (Karnal), did not suffer from any legal infirmity to the extent of re-fixation of pay of the appellant. However, the learned Single Judge has set aside the recovery which was sought to be made on account of re-fixation. In that regard, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana & others 2009(3) S.C.T. 333 : 2009 (3) PLR 511 . The appellant claims that on account of antedating his date of appointment, the earlier fixation by adding the notional period could not be withdrawn and, therefore, the re-fixation itself was unsustainable in the eyes of law.

(2.) In order to put the controversy in its correct perspective it would be necessary to notice few facts. In response to an advertisement issued in the year 1990 by respondent No. 2, for appointment to the post of Lecturers the appellant applied and was selected. His name figured in the order of merit at serial No. 25 but no appointment letter could be given to him in the year 1993 on account of illegal approach adopted by the respondents.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention that this Court in CWP No. 6248 of 1994 issued directions on 09.11.1996 to respondent No. 2 to publish a number of vacancies available from 05.03.1993 to 04.03.1994. the respondent was also directed to publish the number of appointments made during that period including the number of candidates who were kept in the waiting list. In the list so published in the newspaper the name of the writ petitioner-appellant figured and it was reflected that he was appointed as Lecturer in Sanskrit whereas he had not been appointed. It led to filing of a representation by him on 02.07.1997, which referred to the aforesaid publication based on the directions issued by this Court. The grievance made by the appellant was that despite the fact that his name has been shown in the list of appointed candidates as Lecturer in Sanskrit, he had not been given the appointment. As a consequence, the respondent issued appointment letter dated 22.09.1997 (P-1) to the appellant. The extracts of the appointment letter relevant to the controversy are set out as under :