CALLA, J. - (1.) THESE two special appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 25. 10. 1990, whereby two writ petitions No. 69/1987 and 2439/1990 filed by the respondent, Ratan Lal Sharma, were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. (Judgment reported in 1990 (1) RLR 255 ).
(2.) RESPONDENT Ratan Lal Sharma was appointed as Personal Assistant to the Chairman of the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur in the pay scale of Rs. 620-1100 with effect from 4. 08. 1982 in terms of the order dated 2. 09. 1982 issued under the signatures of the then Secretary of the Board. This order dated 2nd Sept. 1982 was modified on 6. 09. 1982, mentioning therein that the respondent was to be paid on contract basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 730/- per month with other facilities like DA, HRA, CCA and other allowances admissible on such pay from time to time till his services are found suitable by the Chairman. After the resignation of the then Chairman of the Rajasthan Housing Board Shri R. N. Chaudhary, an order was passed on 12. 01. 1984 terminating the services of the respondent recording therein that the term of employment of Ratan Lal Sharma expires from the date of resignation of Shri Chaudhary and, hence his services are terminated. This order dated 12. 01. 1984 was later on withdrawn vide order dated 31. 01. 1984, which reads as under: - "office order No. PER Cell 36/dated 12. 1. 1984 by which the services of Shri Ratan Lal Sharma P. A. to Chairman were terminated is hereby withdrawn. This bears the approval of the Chairman, R. H. B. , Jaipur. " The respondent, thus continued in the service of the Board; was permitted registration of a house, as a Board employee and an ex-gratia grant was also paid to him vide order dated 8. 10. 1986. The respondent further alleged that the Rajasthan Housing Board in its 127th meeting held on 22. 10. 1986, under the Chairmanship of the then Chairman Shri Adarsh Kishore unanimously resolved that the services of Ratan Lal Sharma should be regularised keeping in view his experience of 1/2 (sic) years, his efficiency, integrity, devotion to duty and honesty, but inadvertantly this resolution could not be incorporated in the minutes, a corrigendum to this effect was issued on 6. 11. 1986. While the Respondent was so serving as a Personal Assistant to the Chairman, by an order dated 30. 12. 1986, he was sent on deputation at Reception Counter mentioning in the order that for effective and smooth working of the Reception Counter, respondent was deputed at Reception Counter. It is against this order that the respondent preferred a writ petition, bearing No. 69/1987 and, the case set up therein by the respondent was that his posting at Reception Counter was not against an equivalent post, but it was demotion. This order dated 30. 12. 1986 was stayed by this Court on 7. 01. 1987 and the stay order was later on confirmed on 25. 02. 1987. It appears that some efforts were made for amicable settlement and despite the confirmation of the stay order, the petitioner joined on the post of Counter Supervisor till he was posted as Incharge Reception and Library vide order dated 19. 08. 1987, on which post he joined on 20. 08. 1987. On 2. 05. 1988, he was sent on deputation in the office of the Minister, Urban Development and Housing, where he was again asked to join as Personal Assistant to Chairman and Incharge Reception vide order dated 30. 08. 1988. The name of the respondent was, however, not shown in any seniority list despite his repeated representations. The Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated April 24, 1990, addressed to the Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board asked for the reasons for not including his name in the seniority and directed that the seniority list may not be finalised. Vide order dated 4. 06. 1990, the respondent was transferred/posted in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Housing Circle II, Jaipur and, it is against this order dated 4. 06. 1990 that another writ petition No. 2439/1990 was filed by the respondent. The learned Single Judge has held as under : - (1) That the petitioner has justified his retention in the Rajasthan Housing Board. Even after his contractual period was over and his services were terminated, he was recalled by withdrawing the earlier order. (2) The petitioner might not be fulfilling the eligibility conditions for entering into the job, but once his functioning was seen, the authorities concerned were impressed by his efficiency as he had belied the thinking that educationally qualified persons alone could perform his duties on the post he was appointed, he deserves to be retained in service. (3) The eligibility about educational qualification should not be given a complete go-bye or that relaxation should be made therein, but in the special circumstances of the present case where it has been demonstrated by the petitioner that other similarly situated persons who had no basic qualification had been regularised by the Board, there is no point in giving a different treatment to the case of the petitioner. (4) That the petitioner has not only gained experience but has also been considered as an asset to the Board and in these circumstances after his 8 years experience serving in the Board, it would be travesty of justice qua him in case it is held that he continues to be on contractual service and his services are terminable by revoking the contract. He has acquired a right to continue in service as a regular employee in the Board and his services require to be regularised with effect from 31. 01. 1984, when the termination order was withdrawn. Having arrived at the above conclusion, after considering several cases which were cited before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from 31. 01. 1984 and that he should be treated to have been appointed on the post of Personal Assistant in a regular pay scale and his name should be included in the seniority list of Personal Assistants, however, treating him as a junior most as on 31. 01. 1984 and to post him as Personal Assistant or a post equivalent to that in the scale of Rs. 820-1550. In this special appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been assailed by Shri M. I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General, on the following grounds : - 1. Since the respondent had been appointed on contract basis, his services remained contractual even after the withdrawal of the termination order dated 8. 01. 1984 by the order dated 31. 01. 1984 and, therefore, contractual services could be terminated at any time. 2. The respondent had been appointed initially by the then Chairman Housing Board who had a rank of the Cabinet Minister and, therefore, he could choose a person of his choice to work as PA. In this view of the matter, he could not be continued as P. A with the successor Chairman who did not hold a Cabinet rank, more particularly, when the respondent did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed under the regulations with reference to graduation and 100/40 wpm speed in English Short-hand and Typing with at least five years experience of work in similar capacity. 3 That the case of the respondent was different from the persons regularised in the year 1973-75 because at that time, the regulations were not there and the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Regulations came into force in the year 1976 only and the respondent did not possess the minimum qualifications for the post of PA under the aforesaid regulations.
(3.) AS against the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the Rajasthan Housing Board by Shri M. I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General, Shri Satish Chandra Agarwal appearing for the respondent contended that the services of the respondent could not be considered to be contractual indefinitely and once the order terminating the contractual services had been recalled on 31. 01. 1984, there was no question of giving any appointment on contract to the respondent on 31. 01. 1984. Shri Agarwal has submitted that the successor Chairman and other functionaries of the Board had found the services of the respondent very useful to the Board and in the posting order, it was mentioned that he was posted for smooth working and for reasons of efficiency. So far as the qualifications are concerned, apart from quoting certain cases in which persons were continuing on equivalent post even without the qualification of graduation and while being matriculates only, he submitted that the respondent had also rendered the services to the Board for a period over 8 years and he had also proved his worth on all the posts and, as such, at this stage even the want of qualification prescribed under the regulations could not be an impediment in regularisation of services in the Board and in no case he can be given a posting against any post carrying a pay scale short of Rs. 820-1550, lest it would be a case of punitive reversion. Arguments in these two appeals were heard by us on 14. 02. 1991 and the judgment was reserved. Since both the sides were still willing for some amicable settlement, the respondent was asked to give his option for suitable post while reserving the judgment. Subsequently on behalf of the appellant- Rajasthan Housing Board an application (purporting to be dated 27th March 1991) was filed along with a copy of the option application dated 20. 02. 1991 filed before the Board functionaries by the respondent and, as per this application dated 27. 03. 1991 filed by the appellant Board, after examination of the option filed by the respondent, the Board has found that he cannot be absorbed on either of the post, we proceed to decide the controversy as under : - "we have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the respondent. True it is that the initial appointment given to the respondent was on contract basis, but equally true it is that at the time when the order dated 31. 01. 1984 was passed when the termination order was withdrawn, there was no question of contractual appointment and the various orders passed with regard to the respondent, to which reference has been made in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, clearly show that the continuance of the respondent in the service of the Board from 31. 01. 1984 cannot be construed to be on contractual nature. For all purposes, the respondent was treated at par with the other employees of the Board. In the facts of this case, there was no basis for giving an appointment on contractual basis after 31. 01. 1984 to the respondent and, nothing of this sort was indicated in the order dated 31. 01. 1984 while recalling the termination order earlier passed. The respondent was paid all allowances like other employees of the Board and all facilities which were available to other regular employees of the Board Board, were also extended to him and even as late as in the year 1988 he was sent on deputation in the office of the Minister for Urban Development & Housing. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the respondent had justified his retention in the services of the Board after the contractual period was over and he deserves to be regularised in the service of the, calls for interference. On the basis of 8 years service already put in by the respondent; keeping in view his proven worth and utility for the service of the Board, as per the record of the Board to which reference has been made in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we too are of the view that the respondent deserves to be retained in the service of the Board. However, the question still remains as to whether the respondent has a right to be regularised on the post of PA for which, admittedly, he does not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed in the regulations of the Board. May be that certain employees who had been appointed prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Regulations, 1976, or appointed by promotion, do not fulfil such qualifications, the case of the respondent (who was appointed after coming into force of Regulation) in this regard cannot be treated at par with them and, therefore, for want of minimum qualifications for the post of PA, the claim of the respondent for the post of PA cannot be sustained and the directions of the learned Single Judge to the extent it orders to treat the respondent as PA from 31/1/1984 and to include his name in the seniority list of PA cannot be sustained. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the respondent is already continued in the service of the Board for a period of 8 years, and so far as his work, performance and efficiency is concerned, nothing has been pointed out against him even by the Board; on the contrary, the record shows that the respondent has rendered efficient service; his services have been utilised to bring the matters in order as and when it was considered necessary by the Board and he has been testified as a dedicated worker with sense of devotion to duty, is an efficient, independent and sincere person and is an asset to the Board, he deserves to be regularised on some suitable post in the pay scale of Rs. 820-1550. Even in the above application dated 20. 02. 1991, the respondent had given his option for five posts and the Board when filed an application before this Court, after examining this question, the appellant has not dealt with all the options of the respondent and has made a vague mention that respondent does not possess the minimum qualification for either of the post as prescribed in the regulations and he cannot be absorbed on either of the post. We agree with the learned Single Judge that at this stage the ground of want of minimum qualification cannot come in the way of the respondent at least for his regularisation in the service of the Board after keeping him in the service for a period of over 8 years when the respondent has been continuing in the service of the Board with all allowances and regular increments in the pay scale of Rs. 820-1550. So far as the post of Record Officer is concerned, the respondent has mentioned in his option application that no qualification has been prescribed for this post. There is also a post of Assistant Housing Officer on which Office Superintendents are promoted whose qualification is simply Secondary and there are other Assistant Housing Officers who are non-graduates. Keeping in view the entirety of facts, we partly allow these appeals and direct the appellant Housing Board to regularise the services of the respondent and to continue him in the service of the Board on any post carrying the pay scale of Rs. 820-1500 and to treat the respondent as a regular employee in the regular pay scale of Rs. 820-1550 from 31. 01. 1984 and to include his namein the seniority list of such post in the pay scale of Rs. 820-1550, of course, as the junior most employee on such post just below those who were appointed prior to 31. 01. 1984 and to give all censequential benefits to the respondent as a result of the same. In allother respects, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is upheld. ;