- (1.) Mrs. Harjit Kaur and another through present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise their service and allow them to continue to work on the post of Punjabi Lecturer (Full time) for such time till the posts continue to receive sanction, by the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab. Brief facts of the ase need to be noticed first.
(2.) The Managing Committee of the Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Dhariwal advertised two posts of full time lecturers in Punjabi alongwith other posts of lecturers vide advertisement dated May 29,1988. The last date to apply was July L 1988. It is stated that both the petitioners were fully qualified and eligible to apply for the same and they did apply for the posts of full time lecturer in Punjabi. The Selection Committee was constituted by the President of Governing Body of the College, a nominee of the Vice Chancellor, the Principal of the College and two representatives of the Directors Public Instructions Punjab (here-in-after referred to as the DP.I.). Petitioners were duly interviewed for the posts under contention and were selected. In the advertisement, Annexure P-l, it has been mentioned that there was a need of full time lecturers each in English, Mathematics, Sanskrit and two in Panjabi. It is also mentioned that part-time lecturers in Hindi, Panjabi, Sanskrit, Pol. science and History were required. Annexure P-2 are the proceedings of the Selection Committee and these show that petitioner No. 1 was selected whereas petitioner No. 2 was kept in the waiting list and it is positive case of petitioners that since one Paramjit Kaur did not join, petitioner No. 2 came to be appointed on the post of lecturer in Panjabi. It is also made out from the proceedings of the Selection Committee that the selections were subject to the approval of the DP.I. as also the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. The note mentioned in the proceedings also clarifies that the posts were temporary but likely to continue if the same were sanctioned by the D.P.I. Petitioners were appointed on August 1, 1988 and August 12, 1988 respectively on temporary basis for one session. However, the D.P.I. extended the sanction of the posts and it is for that reason that petitioner, Harjit Kaur was told by letter dated March 21,1989 that her services were extended upto March 31, 1990. However, before the extended period could expire the petitioners were asked to quit vide order Annexure R-2 dated March 16,1990 on the ground that their services were no more required as the students had been relieved for preparation of their examinations. It is in wake of the circumstances aforesaid that petitioners came to this Court asking for the relief indicated in the earlier part of the judgment.
(3.) The case of petitioners so pleaded and argued by learned counsel is that as long as the posts held by petitioners were sanctioned and continued by the orders passed by the D.P.I. petitioners could not be relieved more particularly on the ground that the students had been relieved for preparation of their examinations.;