- (1.) The petitioner who has passed M.A., and has done M. Phil and is presently registered for Post Doctoral Research Work was appointed with effect from 27.10.1987 as Lecturer (History) on temporary basis in the service of Fateh Chand College for Women, Hissar. Her appointment was preceded by selection made by a duly constituted Selection Committee. Kurukshetra University (respondent No. 2) with which respondent No. 3 is affiliated, approved petitioner's appointment as a Lecturer in History. Since the petitioner was appointed against a leave vacancy caused due to the fact that one Mrs. Asha Kiran was on leave, her temporary appointment was continued with short intervals. Respondent No. 2 also approved the continuance of the petitioner in service upto 31.3.1991. She was once again selected and was appointed as Lecturer in History upto 31.3.1994. This time again, the respondent No. 2 approved petitioner's appointment. Finally Mrs. Asha Kiran resigned from service of respondent No. 3 with effect from 31.3.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner made a claim for appointment in service on regular basis in view of the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana on 20.11.1987 and, therefore, she requested the respondents to regularise her service. Having failed to persuade the respondents for issuing an appropriate order in her favour, she approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to treat her as regularly appointed Lecturer in History at least with effect from the date of availability of the vacancy.
(2.) Respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the policy decision on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner has been superseded vide circular dated 8.4.1991. According to them, a person appointed against a leave vacancy through a regularly constituted Selection Committee can have no right of regular appointment on the availability of regular vacancy and such regular vacancy has to be advertised afresh for making regular appointment.
(3.) Mr. Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously argued that after having rendered 7 years' service, the petitioner has acquired a right to be treated as substantive in service and she cannot be deprived of the only source of her livelihood particularly when the Government has itself formulated a policy of giving the benefit of regularisation to those teachers who were at one time selected for appointment against leave vacancy on the recommendations of duly constituted Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Parveen Chaudhary v. State of Haryana and others, 1995 1 SCT 22 and in Civil Writ Petition No. 3975 of 1991, Miss Vandana Thukral v. State of Haryana and others, decided on February 4, 1994. Learned counsel for the respondents have pleaded that the policy decision contained in the executive instructions issued by the Government of Haryana on 20.11.1987 stands amended by a subsequent circular dated 8.4.1991 and since the leave vacancy caused due to grant of leave in favour of Mrs. Asha Kiran became available as a regular vacancy with effect from 31.3.1994 only, the said vacancy could be filled only by a fresh advertisement. Learned counsel argued that no right much less a vested right came to acrue in favour of the petitioner on the basis of her selection and appointment against the leave vacancy. They submitted that the Government which has the power to issue administrative instructions has also the power to supersede, modify or amend such instructions and, therefore, as on 31.3.1994 the instructions issued vide circular dated 8.4.1991 would prevail and the same have to be applied by the respondents for the purpose of making appointment against regular vacancy which became available due to the resignation of Mrs. Asha Kiran.;