S. P. Goyal, J. - (1.) The petitioner after her matriculation successfully completed one year's course in shorthand and type-writing and thereafter, she was selected as Steno in the Central State Library, Patiala under the Punjab Education Department on Sept. 11, 1972 and served in that capacity till May 8, 1974. Thereafter she was selected as Proof Reader/ Clerk in the office of the Chief Election Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh, through the Employment Exchange and joined her duties there on Feb. 7, 1975. To her bad luck, some posts were reduced in the Election Department and her services were, on that account, terminated. However, she was again appointed in the office of 'the Commissioner Transport on Dec. 22, 1976 and she was given the benefit of the service which she had rendered in the 'Election Department in the fixation of salary. While serving in the said department, she also qualified the test for Clerks held by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board in the month of Oct., 1977. Her services were a said terminated on Sept. 13, 1978 vide Annexure P-8 because of the abolition of certain posts. The petitioner, however, claimed that she was entitled to the regularisation of her services in view of the instructions of the Government dated May 3, 1977 (Annexure P-6). Consequently, she filed the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order (Annexure P-8) and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise her services.
(2.) The petition has been opposed by the Punjab State and in the affidavit filed by the State Transport Commissioner, it has been averred that the petitioner's services were terminated on the abolition of the four posts of clerks and she being an ad hoc employee has no right to be absorbed in the service. As regards the instructions (Annexure P-6), it has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to its benefit because she had not completed one year's service on March 31, 1977 in this department and that her services in the Election Department could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of regularisation of her service because notional breaks falling between ad hoc appointment in the same category of posts in the same department could only be ignored according to the said instructions.
(3.) Mr. M. R. Agnihotri, the learned counsel, in support of the claim of the petitioner that she was entitled to the benefit of instructions, Annexure P-6 relying on Annexures P-3 and P-7 contended that after her retrenchment from the office of the Chief Election Officer, she was absorbed in the State Transport Department and there was no break in her service. Vide order, Annexure P-3, the petitioner was allowed the benefit of the service rendered by her in the other departments from Sept. 12, 1972 upto Dec. 21, 1976 for the purpose of fixation of her pay. Again, vide Annexure P-7, reversion order of the petitioner to the Election Department was revoked on the ground that she had been appointed against a regular vacancy in that department. But on the basis of these two facts, the claim of the petitioner that she was in continuous service cannot be sustained. Had it been that she was relieved from the Election Department on her selection in the State Transport Department, it cannot be said that her service was continuous but what happened was that on the abolition of certain posts in the Election Department, her services were terminated though she was absorbed in the Transport Department and it was by way of fresh appointment. She could not be also given the benefit of the instructions, Annexure P-6, because under these instructions break of notional nature falling between ad hoc appointment in the same category of posts in the same department could only be ignored. For the purpose of these instructions, therefore, the service rendered by her in the Election Department cannot be taken into consideration, the same being a different department than the Transport Department. The claim of the petitioner on the basis of the said instructions cannot be sustained and her petition has to be dismissed. However, I cannot help observing that the petitioner has been the victim of circumstances beyond her control. Under the instructions (Annexure P-6) the persons who are appointed on ad hoc basis and had completed service of one year on March 31, 1977 were held to be entitled to be regularised by this Court as of right but the petitioner who has served the Government to the entire satisfaction of her officers for more than six years and had even qualified the test held by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board is not entitled to the benefit of these instructions. In these circumstances, I hope the State Transport Commissioner would consider her case sympathetically and absorb her against a vacancy as and when the same may be available.;