STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. v. SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 553

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: L.M. SHARMA, J.S. VERMA, S.C. AGRAWAL

Case summary

giving the reference of similar writ petitions which had been earlier dismissed by this Court The respondents also detailed relevant facts which clearly distinguish the regularly appointed lecturers from the part time appointees, and ,.

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: - ~ SHARMA, J. This special leave petition is directed against the order of the High Court dated 4. 4. 1991 disposing of a writ petition filed by the present two respondents. The entire judgment reads thus: - "On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the just and fair order should be that the petitioners who have been appointed on part time basis should be continued until the ~- Govt make regular appointments on the recommendations of the public service commiss. ion. Meanwhile the petitioners will get their salary for the period of the vacation. " Notice was issued to the respondents asking them to get ready for final disposal of the case, and accordingly they have filed their counter affidavit followed by further affidavits by the parties. 2. Special leave is granted. -- "f 3.

In pursuance of certain Instructions issued by the Director, Education Department of the State ofPunjab in 1990, each ofthe respondents was offered a post, as per annexures P/l and P/2'respectively, of part time lecturer on the specific condition that he could be relieved at any time without notice, and that the payment would be made at the rate indicated therein on hourly basis. The respondents accepted the offers, and were appointed accordingly. On 26. 2. 1991 the respondents filed the writ petition (CWP No. 3150/91), contending that they were entitled to be regularised in their posts as lecturers with salary on regular pay scale. 4. A written statement was filed refuting the claim in the writ petition and _,.... giving the reference of similar writ petitions which had been earlier dismissed by this Court The respondents also detailed relevant facts which clearly distinguish the regularly appointed lecturers from the part time appointees, and ,.

< indicate that the writ petition was fit to be dismissed. The court, however, ' without dealing with any of the points raised by the appellants (respondenl'I before the High Court) allowed the writ petition by a cryptic order, which has been quoted above. 5. It is not contested that an Instruction by the Education Departmentwas issued in pursuance of which the appointments of the respondents in question were made as part time lecturers. It is also not suggested that the respondents accepted the. terms set out in annexures P/1 and P/2 under mistake. We,