AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. - (1.) Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 (Annexure P -7) passed by respondent No.2 -the Director, Industrial Training Institute and Vocational Education, Haryana, vide which their services have been terminated.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 Kismat was one of the petitioners in CWP No.5289 of 2007 (Ashok Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others), whereas Ved Pal petitioner No.2 was a petitioner in CWP No.5426 of 2007 (Jasbiro Devi and others Versus State of Haryana and others) and petitioner No.3 Deepak Kumar was a petitioner in CWP No.5414 of 2007 (Rai Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others). These writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide a common order dated 24.01.2008 (Annexure P -2) with the lead case being CWP No.5289 of 2007 (Ashok Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others). State of Haryana preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was disposed of by the said Court vide order dated 13.07.2011 on the basis of a short affidavit filed by Shri Vijay Singh, Joint Secretary to Government of Haryana, Industrial Training Department dated 13.07.2011, wherein it was stated that the Government was prepared to accommodate the eligible respondents numbering 258, who fulfill the requisite qualification as per the rules on humanitarian ground in the Industrial Training Department against the vacant posts in case a direction is issued to that effect. In the light of the said affidavit, directions were issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it would be in the interest of justice if eligible respondents, who fulfill the requisite qualification are accommodated. The said action was to be taken by the State within a period of three months.
(3.) PETITIONERS , being respondents in the Special Leave Petition and were found eligible out of the 258 respondents to be accommodated, should have been taken back in service, but instead after the disposal of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in this Court vide order dated 24.01.2008, their services were terminated by the respondents vide impugned order dated 12.05.2010 (Annexure P -7). This, the counsel for the petitioners, contends is not sustainable in the light of the affidavit filed by the respondents in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Petitioners were required to be considered for adjustment. Instead, the respondents after terminating the services of the petitioners, simply proceeded to ignore the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they were not serving the respondent - department on the date when the order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e., 21.01.2013. He contends that the action of the respondents is not in accordance with law and in any case against the affidavit which has been filed by the State in the Supreme Court. He has also contended that the order dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure R -1) passed by the Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Industrial Training Department, is not sustainable as the condition which has been imposed while considering the claims of 258 respondents vide the said order that they should be on the posts on which they were working when the order was passed is alien to the proceedings in the Supreme Court as the affidavit dated 13.07.2011 did not speak of the same. Prayer has, thus, been made to issue directions to the respondents to adjust the petitioners in compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;