HC rejects revival of regularisation policy for Class II appointees in Haryana
Says regularisation from retrospective date after two-yr service can't be sustained
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the Haryana Government’s 2014 decision granting retrospective regularisation to ad hoc appointees on Class II posts.
Allowing a petition filed by regularly appointed employees in different government-run polytechnics in the state, the Bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor said the revival regularisation policy upon completion of two years’ service, and consequential grant of regularisation from retrospective date could not be sustained.
“The impugned policy dated June 16, 2014, as well as consequential regularisation from retrospective date vide an annexure dated August 29, 2014, are set aside,” the Bench ruled, while holding that the state could not resurrect the policy, particularly in view of binding Supreme Court precedents.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgments, the Bench said it had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the state was not justified in coming out with the policy reviving the provision of regularisation. Tracing the legal background, the Bench said Haryana originally framed the policy on March 7, 1996, permitting regularisation of ad hoc Class II employees. But the policy was withdrawn following Supreme Court's observations in a case.
The Bench said appointments to Class II posts required consultation with the Public Service Commission, and that such requirement flowed directly from Article 320 of the Constitution and the Haryana Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1973.
“By virtue of clause 3(a) of Article 320, the State Public Service Commission is required to be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts.”
The Bench added Class III and IV posts had been kept out of the commission’s purview, but no such exclusion existed for Class II posts. “We find that once recruitment to Class II posts fell within the purview of the Public Service Commission, it was not open for the State to come out with a policy which had the effect of regularising such appointments”.
The court said the state failed to place valid justification on record for reviving the 1996 policy discontinued in December 1997. The only defence put forth by the respondent-employees was that the policy had been implemented for others.
Rejecting the contention, the Bench stated: “This justification offered by the respondents cannot find approval of the court in view of the fact that the recruitment on Class II posts was required to be made through the Public Service Commission, and no principle of law otherwise justifies regularisation on the strength of working for a period of two years”.
