Gajraj & Others Petitioner(S) v. State Of Haryana And Others (S)

AJAY TEWARI, J

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Counsel for the petitioners has supplied one copy of the writ petition to counsel for the respondents and undertakes to hand over five more copies during the course of the day.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that his case is similar to the decision rendered in CWP No. 5289 of 2007, Ashok Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others decided on 24.1.2008, which was disposed of with the following directions :-

“In view of the consensus arrive at between the parties, we dispose of these writ petition with a direction to the respondent to allow the petitioners to continue in service, subject to all terms and conditions which they had accepted by executive agreement dated 8.11.2006 (Annexure P-7). It is further made clear that in case work and conduct of any employee is not up to mark, authority(s) concerned will be at liberty to take action as per rules. It is further directed as follow :-

(i) That the petitioners shall not be entitled to continue in service, when regularly selected candidates, on completion of on going process are appointed against the posts, the petitioners are holding at present.

(ii) In case the department decides to close down any trade in any institute, incumbent of those posts will have no right to continue. However, in case that very trade is opened in any other institute and if former teachers are available, they be offered the posts in the first preference.

(iii) In case the department of vocational education is merged with the department of secondary education, the petitioners will continue to work on the same terms and conditions under which they are working now and will leave the post when regularly selected candidates are appointed against terms or in case on account of availability of regularly staff their services become surplus.”

Mr. Rathee states that he would have no objection if this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms with the caveat that in case at any stage it is found that in fact the cases are not similar, liberty be granted to the respondent-State to move for modification of this order.

I find this to be a fair request. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as CWP No. 5289 of 2007 with the above mentioned caveat.

(AJAY TEWARI) May 28, 2009. JUDGE

‘kk’