- (1.) The petitioner who possessed the qualifications of B.A. B.Ed was divorced by her husband prior to 1975. On the basis of her educational qualification she was appointed to the post of Social Studies Mistress in the Department of Education on ad-hoc basis on 17.1.1975 vide appointment letter copy of which was annexure P/1. She was offered this appointment on compassionate ground being a deserted wife on priority basis. She continued to work on this post without break and her case was sent for regularisation on 8.11.1976. The respondents issued instructions whereby it was decided to regularise the services of all ad-hoc employees who had completed the period of one year on 31.3.1977. The services of the petitioner were not regularised on the ground that her initial recruitment was not recommended by the Employment Exchange and she had made a direct application to respondent No. 2. On 28.10.1980 further instructions were issued in connection with regularisation of services copy of which was Annexure P/5. In these instructions it was clearly stated that those persons will be eligible for regularisation if they had been recruited through Employment Exchange or by open advertisement. The Petitioner alleged that her case was covered by these instructions and she was entitled to regularisation of her services. Services of numerous persons who joined the department much later had been regularised. Even if her recruitment was not through Employment Exchange that condition could be relaxed as she had worked for more than three years. She, thus, filed the present writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to regularise her services with effect from 1.4.1977.
(2.) The petition was resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that she was not entitled to be appointed on priority basis and as her case was not recommended by the Employment Exchange her services could not be regularised.
(3.) The petitioner is admittedly in service since 1975. Her main grievance is that in spite of various instructions issued by the respondents her claim for regularisation was not considered. The latest instructions issued by the Government regarding regularisation of the employees are contained in letter dated September 5, 1991 by which it has been provided that the services of such ad-hoc employees who had completed a minimum of two years of service by December 31, 1990 may be regularised. Vide Annexure P/5 services of even those employees were to be regularised who were recruited through the Employment Exchange or by open advertisement if they fulfilled other conditions. The fact that the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on priority basis cannot debar her from claiming regularisation of her service when she has been serving the department for the last about 10 years. The instructions issued by the Government from time to time ensured the regularisation of ad-hoc employees as fulfilling certain conditions. In view of these instructions services of employees appointed much later than the petitioner must have been regularised. The petitioner cannot be denied this relief now on the ground that she was not entitled to be posted on priority basis and without recommendation of the Employment Exchange. Keeping in consideration the length of service of the petitioner I allow this petition and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1977. The needful in this behalf be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the respondents.;