- (1.) This appeal under Clause X of Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed on 4.4.2011 dismissing the writ petition.
(2.) In the writ petition, 8 teachers serving in different Government Schools in District Sangrur had approached this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 9.8.2012 (Annexure P-5) inasmuch as the benefit of service rendered on 89 days basis prior to regularization of service would not be counted for any purpose including re-fixation of pay and grant of annual increments. Though the petitioners were regularly recruited as teachers but secured appointment beyond advertised vacancies, their appointments were, however, nullified by this Court in CWP No.5985 of 1994; titled Ushwinder Singh Rana and others v. State of Punjab in which the selection of 2461 posts of teachers in different subjects were upheld but appointments of candidates beyond the number of advertised posts were quashed. The petitioners indisputably had secured appointments against vacancies which had arisen after the advertisement dated 9.8.1992. Against the decision of this Court, an SLP was carried to the Supreme Court and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court was upheld in Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1997 8 SCC 488. It would be relevant to record that the State had not filed any SLP against the judgment of this Court. Since a large number of appointments had been made beyond advertised vacancies, the State Government had felt that their removal would cause destruction of the on going curriculum and mid way disruption in schools and therefore, a via media was found by enacting a law known as the Punjab Special Recruitment of Teachers Act 1997. This Act was challenged before this Court and the matter came to be decided by the Full Bench holding that the defect pointed out by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh' case had not been cured and the base of the judgment had not been removed. Consequently, the Act was set aside. A fresh legislative exercise was traversed which culminated in the Punjab Recruitment of Teachers Act, 1999, saving the appointments of teachers appointed beyond advertised vacancies. This Act regularized the services of the petitioners and there ilk with retrospective effect from 19.8.1992. The Act, however, denied benefit of antedated seniority to the beneficiaries. The challenge to the Act is pending but its operation has not been stayed.
(3.) To return to the order dated 9.8.2010 impugned before the learned Single Judge, it is found that the Government order was passed on the strength of a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7765 of 2003 titled Harinder Kaur and another v. State of Punjab, the text of which was placed on record as Annexure P-6. It was in the course of proceedings in COCP 409 of 1996 titled as Gurmukh Singh and others v. Smt. Satwant Reddy and CM No.12636-II of 1996 that the Government spelt out it's decision to allow ad hoc teachers to continue in service up to the completion of the academic session 1996-97, by the end of which time an assurance was given that selection process would be completed. In those contempt proceedings, the learned Advocate General, Punjab made a statement that no weightage would be given to any ad hoc teacher on the basis of his ad hoc service at the time of regular selection and that the services of no teacher would be regularized only on the ground of his having put in a certain number of years in service.;