HC gives Haryana liberty to fill up 2,388 requisitioned posts of ‘instructors’

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 14

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has given the State of Haryana the liberty to fill up 2,388 requisitioned posts of “instructors” on a regular basis.

The direction by the Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli came on an application filed by the State of Haryana for modification of the High Court’s order dated May 23, 2019, to enable the government to fill the posts.

The Bench observed the Industrial Training Department published an advertisement dated April 25, 2016, to fill up 1,025 posts of instructors in “various trades on contractual basis”. No less than 316 instructors joined service on contractual basis, but the recruitment process came to a halt following a stay order dated April 25, 2017.

In the legal battle that ensued, Haryana Chief Secretary cancelled the recruitment process with regard to the remaining posts. The government decided to fill up 2,388 posts of instructors on a regular basis, a requisition for which had already been sent to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.

Taking up yet another petition, a Single Judge, vide judgment dated October 26, 2018, concluded that the respondent-candidates had participated in the selection process to fill up 1,025 posts and were amongst the selected candidates. As such, they had a right to be considered for appointment on a par with the other 316 instructors, who had since joined. A direction was, as such, issued by the Single Judge to delete 1,025 posts from the 2,388 requisitioned posts.

As State’s plea came up for hearing, the Division Bench asserted the Single Judge, at best, could have directed the appellants to appoint the candidates on a contractual basis till the regularly recruited candidates were available. The direction on deletion of posts was “wholly out of context and erroneous”.

The Bench observed the State counsel had earlier submitted that direction had lost its significance as the candidates were appointed on contractual basis. “But it appears that owing to an inadvertent error in conveying the instructions from the department or a miscommunication, the counsel stated that after deleting the number of appointments granted to the respondents, rest of the vacancies be added to the requisitioned posts.”

The Bench added the possibility of discrepancy creeping in while recording the statement, too, could not be ruled out. “It defies logic that the respondents, who were appointed on contractual basis, as a stop gap arrangement till the regular appointments were made would continue as such in perpetuity, depriving the department to carry out the regular recruitment against the posts…,” the Bench concluded, while modifying the direction and giving the State the liberty to fill up the requisitioned posts.