V.K. Jhanji, J. - (1.) This will dispose of C.R. Nos. 2419 to 2422 of 1993. The facts are taken from C.R. No. 2419 of 1993, Haryana State Social Welfare Advisory Board v. Sudesh Kumari Sharma . The respondent was appointed as an Assistant on ad hoc basis in the office of the petitioner-Board on 11.5.1990 for a period of 89 days. When she had put in almost 3 months service her services were regularised vide order dated 7.8.1990. The order of regularisation was issued by the Secretary of the Board and it is mentioned in the order that the order is being issued with the approval of the Chairman of the Board. Thereafter an order was passed on August 27, 1992 whereby the respondent was relegated to the position of ad hoc employee which she was holding prior to regularisation. She challenged this order in the suit out of which the present revision petition has arisen. The suit was for declaration to the effect that the order dated 27.8.1992 issued by the Board is null and void, illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and against the law and has no binding effect and she continues to be Assistant on regular basis and for an injunction restraining the Board from implementing the said order. Along with the suit, she filed an application for ad- interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. The trial Court vide its order dated 22.1.1992, restrained the Board from implementing the order dated 27.8.1992. Aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, the Board preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. Vide order dated 14.5.1993, order of the trial Court was affirmed, and this is how the Board has come in revision in this Court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of regularisation was passed illegally by the then Chairman of the Board. He has made reference to rule 10 which provides for appointment to the post. Counsel has also referred to a decision of Apex Court in CA.No. 2271 of 1994. In answer to these submissions, counsel for the respondent in this case, as well as the counsel for the respondents in connected revision petitions, contended that once the Chairman had regularised the services of the respondent, there was no justification to relegate the respondent to the position of an ad hoc employee and that too, without an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person. Thus, according to the counsel, there is no scope for interference with the orders of the Courts below as the order of the Board on the face of it, was against the principles of natural justice.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order under revision cannot be sustained. The services of one Raj Rani who was also appointed as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) on ad hoc basis, were regularised by the Chairman on 26.8.1992. Her services were terminated, which order she challenged in this Court by filing a writ petition, but the same was dismissed on 23.7.1993 against which she preferred Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 4.4.1994. Her appeal was allowed to the extent that the order terminating her services was set aside and as a consequence of that, she was relegated to the position of an ad hoc employee. The Supreme Court observed in her case as under:- "If it was found that order for regularisation of the appellant was not validly passed, she could be relegated to the position of ad hoc employee which she was holding prior to such regularisation and that could not be a ground for terminating the services of the appellant. That seems to have been done in respect of six other employees whose services are also said to have been wrongly regularised. Those employees have contained as ad hoc employees after the order of regularisation was revoked. We do not find any reason why the appellant should be treated differently. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The termination of the services of the appellant under order dated 26/27.8.1992 is set aside and the said order would only operate as effecting revocation of the order dated 27.5.1992 for regularisation of the appellant and as a consequence the appellant would be relegated to the position of an ad hoc employee which she was having on the date of passing of the order of regularisation. As to whether the services of the appellant as an ad hoc employee should be terminated will have to be considered by respondent No. 1 along with other ad hoc employees. The appellant will, however, not be entitled to any back wages. No order as to costs." As would be seen from the order of the Supreme Court that while dealing with the case of Raj Rani who was similarly situated, the case of the respondent too was noticed. Apart from this, order under revision cannot be sustained in view of Rule 10 of the Rules. Rule 10(i) of the Rules governing the composition and functions of the State Social Welfare Advisory Board, which provides for the powers of the Board to make appointment to the post, reads as under:- "10(i) the Board shall have power to make appointment to posts sanctioned by the Central Board on terms to be prescribed with the prior approval of the Central Board, except the Secretary of the Board who shall be appointed in consultation with the Central Board." The above-quoted rule would show that it is only the Board which has the power to make appointments and that too only to those posts which have been sanctioned by the Central Board and again only on those terms which have been prescribed with the prior approval of the Central Board. In the case of the respondent, there is nothing on record to show that the Board had regularised the services of the respondent or that regularisation was against the posts which were sanctioned by the Central Board. In absence of any authority of the Board, the Chairman had no authority to make appointment or regularise the services of the respondent. Notice was not required to be served on the respondent before relegating her to the position of an ad hoc employee because order of regularisation was void ab initio having been passed by an Authority who had no jurisdiction to pass such an order.;