KULWANT SINGH Vs. POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Applicant is aggrieved against the order dated 13.10.2010 by which the claim of the applicant for regularization as Clerk w.e.f. 16.8.1994 as granted to respondent No. 2 who is junior to the applicant has been rejected. The facts as canvassed are that the applicant was initially engaged as Clerk on daily wages for a period of 89 days against the vacancy of Sh. Suram Singh Clerk, who was under suspension. The period of appointment was extended from time to time and it continued till 25.8.1990. The applicant and one Sh. Jagmohan Singh (i.e. respondent No. 2) approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of CWP No. 10384 of 1990, praying therein to direct the respondents to regularize their services from their initial date of appointment and also to grant all consequential benefits. The said CWP was disposed off vide order dated 3.8.1990 with a direction to respondents to consider the case of the applicants (therein) in view of Piara Singh's case, 1988 (4) SLR 709 and to pass appropriate order within a period of six months. Pursuant to the said orders, the applicant submitted a representation on 3.8.1990. They both were allowed to continue in service till further orders. The applicant was placed under suspension by order dated 15.4.1994 on account of detention in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. Ultimately, the applicant was exonerated from the Criminal charges, his suspension was revoked by order dated 6.1.1997. Vide order dated 19.9.2001, the applicant was appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 3050 -4590 plus other allowances. It is alleged, that the services of respondent No. 2, who joined later than the applicant, have been regularized vide order dated 16.8.1994, whereas the services of the applicant were not regularized. The applicant stated to have submitted various representations and vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2010, the request of the applicant was rejected, hence the present Original Application.

(2.) PURSUANCE to the notice, respondents filed detailed written statement, taking a preliminary objection that the original application deserves to be dismissed being highly time barred. On merits, it is submitted that as per Recruitment Rules, it is mandatory to clear a typing test in order to become eligible for consideration for the appointment to the post of Clerk. Since, the applicant and respondent No. 2 did not clear the typing test in the year 1993, which was subsequently cleared by respondent No. 2 on 11.6.1994, his services were regularized w.e.f. 16.8.1994. It is submitted, that the applicant was a daily wager clerk who was placed under suspension in terms of Rule 10(2) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 wrongly because the same are not applicable to a person on daily wages. Despite, that the applicant was taken back in service on his acquittal from a Criminal case. His services were not regularized for requirement of clearance of typing test. Again, a chance was given to the applicant in the year 2000. However, the applicant submitted an application on 8.7.2000 with medical certificate seeking exemption from typing test. The applicant appeared before a Medical Board on 9.2.2001, the Board recommended to exempt him from typing test because of his Traumatic amputations 3/4 ray of left hand'. It is, thereafter, it was proposed to regularize his services against roster of handicapped persons in LDC category. Since, there was no vacancy under the Handicapped quota, it was decided to temporarily adjust him against vacant unreserved category post pending adjustment against appropriate handicapped person quota. Subsequently, the Departmental Promotional Committee in its meeting held on 6.9.2001, proposed to regularize his services with immediate effect and consequently, order of regularization were issued on 19.9.2001.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Karan Singla, for Mr. D.S. Walia, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Vikrant Sharma, learned Counsel for the official respondents. None appeared for the respondent No. 2.