- (1.) Secretary to Government Haryana Education Department vide his Memo No. 10/6779-Edu.III(4) dated 5.2.1980 addressed to the Director of Public Instructions, Haryana, Chandigarh, communicated that consequent upon the judgment of this Court, the following decisions have been taken: i) Services of the teachers falling under category 2 of the undertaking given before the Hon'ble High Court by the Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, in Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 1979 re. de-regularisation of their services is required to be served on the teachers concerned. ii) Such de-regularised teachers may be retained in service as adhoc teachers. The Director of Public Instructions, Haryana, was requested to take immediate action in the matter. Consequently vide another Memo dated 1.7.1980 the Secretary to Government Haryana, Education Department addressed to the Director of Public Instructions, Haryana, on the subject of regularisation of teacher/master/mistress of Education Department working on adhoc basis intimated that a decision had been taken that services of adhoc teacher/master/mistress working in the Haryana Education Department be regularised with effect from 1.1.1980 and only such teachers/masters/mastress shall be eligible for regularisation for their services who had completed a minimum of two years service upto 31.12.1970. Regularisation was to be made subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the aforesaid memo. The petitioners have asserted that they were working on adhoc basis when the Teachers Union of Haryana went on strike in support of their demands with effect from 12.2.1973. The Teachers Union and the Haryana Government entered into a compromise and all those teachers who were on strike were permitted to join their duties in the year 1977 vide Annexure P/1. In the month of December, 1978 the respondent-State Government is stated to have decided as a matter of policy to regularise the services of all the stipendiary teachers like the petitioners vide Annexure P/2. Consequently, services of all the teachers were regularised with effect from 1.1.1979 vide Annexure P/3. Some teachers are stated to have filed Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 1979 in this Court in which the petitioners were not impleaded as respondents. Claiming to be implementing the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 783 of 1979, the respondents issued Annexure P/4 indicating the decision of the Government regarding de- regularisation of ineligible stipendiary teachers. Orders of deregularisation of services of the petitioners and others were issued with the result that thousands of teachers in the State of Haryana who were affected resulting in their termination of services approached this Court and at the time of final hearing of the case, the learned Advocate General, Haryana, submitted that the Government had taken a decision by which the services of the petitioners were likely to be regularised except 24 teachers and 16 masters. This Court is stated to have passed specific orders that cases of those 24 teachers and 16 masters be also considered on merits and if they were the petitioners in the petitions which were being disposed of their cases shall also be re-heard. In the month of July, 1980 the Government of Haryana issued a letter intimating that services of all the teachers who had completed two years service between 1.11.1966 to 31.12.1979, shall be regularised. Respondent No. 3 is again stated to have issued a memo dated 3.3.1981 by which all those teachers who had not completed two years of service upto 31.12.1979 were directed to be posted as ordinary adhoc teachers. Petitioners apprehended that respondents were contemplating to pass termination orders against them acting upon the memo allegedly issued in compliance of the Court directions. It is submitted that as the petitioners were not a party in the earlier Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 1979 so the judgment was not binding upon them and respondents were estopped from taking any action of termination of services of the petitioners. The impugned order is alleged to be violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India besides being discriminatory in as much as number of other teachers similarly situated as the petitioners are have been regularised. It has been prayed that the offending memo be quashed and the petitioner be declared to be in service and entitled to all consequential benefits.
(2.) In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that as the orders have been issued in compliance of the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 1979, nc writ can be issued against the respondents. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not eligible for regularisation of their services under policy decision dated 1.7.1980. As was the matter in controversy in C.W.P. No. 1561 of 1980, it is stated that the teachers/masters who did not fulfil the conditions contained in letter dated 1.7.1980 were not eligible for regularisation with the result that all such teachers were treated as adhoc employees. It is further submitted that apprehension of passing of termination orders against them was wrong and baseless. A person working on adhoc basis does not acquire any right to the post and his services are terminable at any time without assigning any reason. It is again contended that in compliance to the directions of this Court the termination of services of the petitioners have been stayed till further orders.
(3.) While arguing the case the counsel for the respondents submitted that services of the petitioners are liable to be terminated consequent upon the judgment of this Court for which no directions can be issued against the respondents. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court delivered in Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 1979. In order to appreciate the consequences of the orders passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 783 of 1979 it is pertinent to have a careful perusal of the order sought to be relied upon by the respondents, which is reproduced below: "Mr. Naubat Singh, learned Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Haryana, states as under:- i) That the stipendiary teachers, who were recruited on adhoc basis before 1979 and during the strike period of 1973 and who are still continuing in service, alone shall be entitled to the regularisation of their service as a class in preference to other adhoc teachers. ii) That any Master who was employed for a short period during the strike but was relieved of his post after the coming of an end of the strike and was re- employed not as a result of national break but otherwise, then he would not be treated as a stipendiary teacher and would be treated only as an ordinary teacher. iii) That such adhoc teachers who were either employed before the strike and continued to work during the strike or those who were for the first time recruited on ad hoc basis during the strike, they would form one class of stipendiary teachers and their services shall be regularised in preference to other adhoc teachers. iv) That any seats which would fall vacant because of non-fulfilment of conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) than against these posts the claim of all eligible persons be considered by the appropriate authority; and v) That all these teachers would be taken back in service on adhoc basis who were relieved of their post in order to accommodate the stipendiary teachers who were junior to those persons and did not fulfil the criteria under clause (i), (ii) and (iii) for being regularised, as if there had not been any break for the purpose of authority of adhoc teacher. In view of what has been stated by Mr. Naubat Singh, Mr. Prem Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners do not press this petition. Accordingly, we dispose of the same without there being any order as to costs.";