Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.:— Smt. Santosh was appointed as S.V Teacher on ad hoc basis on December 19, 1970. She worked for different intervals of time and had completed a service of 4 years and 5 months on March 31, 1977. On May 3, 1977, the Punjab Government issued a circular which provided for the regularisation of the services of the ad hoc employees, who had “completed a minimum one year's service on 31.3.1977” and fulfilled “the academic qualifications including experience, if any, prescribed for the job/post, including the condition of age at the time of their first appointment as such. “Relying on the stipulations in this circular letter, the petitioner filed this petition claiming regularisation of ad hoc appointment.
2. The Motion Bench while admitting the petition stayed the termination of her service. While this petition was pending, Smt. Santosh unfortunately passed away in March 1988. Consequently, an application for impleading her legal representatives, viz. CM. No. 12579 of 1988 was moved. As a result, her husband and four minor daughters were impleaded as legal representatives.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been pointed out that “since the petitioner did not fulfil the qualifications according to the instructions contained in the Presidential orders, her services could. not be regularised.” In the written statement it has been specifically pointed out that the petitioner did not have Diploma in S.V Training.
4. The Petitioner filed a replication pointing out that she had passed B.A Part-I examination, which should be considered as equivalent to F.A On this premises, it is claimed that the petitioner was qualified for the post of S.V Teacher. Reference has been made to an advertisement by which applications were invited for 220 posts of S.V teachers. In this advertisement, persons possessing the qualification of F.A/F.Sc with two years course in J.B.T………….were considered as eligible. It has been further pointed out that the Department has regularised the services of seven other teachers, who did not fulfill the prescribed qualifications. Reference has also been made to a letter dated December 16, 1965, by which the District Education Officer had circulated a letter that the junior teachers, who possess the qualification of Prabhakar/Giani/F.A may be promoted to the posts of Hindi/Punjabi/S.V Sanskrit and Drawing teachers.
5. The claim made in the replication has been controverted on behalf of the respondents. An affidavit has been filed to point out that passing of B.A Part-I examination did not entitle the petitioner to claim that she possessed the qualification of F.A Further details have been given to show that the petitioner is not equipped that the services of seven other teachers had been regularised, it has been mentioned that the matter is “under the consideration of the Government………..”
6. I have heard Mr. I.S Vimal for the petitioner and Mr. S.S Kang, learned Deputy Advocate General. (Punjab) for the respondents.
7. Every post under the State has to be filled up in accordance with the provisions of the Rules governing the service. The prescribed method of recruitment has to be followed. Even the guarantee enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution entitles every eligible person, to compete for recruitment to the post. Any ad hoc appointment made by the department without following the prescribed procedure or making of a proper advertisement is in the nature of a temporary arrangement to tide over a peculiar situation. It is not regular and cannot be allowed to continue for years. Continuance of an ad hoc employee for a long duration of time is itself arbitrary and amounts to denial of an equality of opportunity to various eligible persons. Even the method of filling up of posts by getting names from the Employment Exchange does not cure the defect in as much as various persons, who may be eligible and even desirous of competing for the post may not either get their names registered with the employment exchange or their names may not be sponsored at a given point of time. Regularisation of the services of a person recruited in an irregular manner may itself be questionable. However, if it is permitted by the State on account of the peculiar situation, as visualised in the order dated May 3, 1977, every stipulations in the order and especially those relating to the qualifications etc. have to be strictly enforced. The mere fact that the person has worked for a number of years on ad hoc basis does not by itself entitle the employee to claim and get regularised if he/she doe not fulfil the conditions prescribed in the said order.
8. In the present case, it is the admitted position that the petitioner did not have the qualification of Diploma in S.V training as averred in the written statement. She was thus not eligible. Consequently, I can find no fault with the action of the respondents in not regularising her services.
9. Mr. Vimal points out that the petitioner had served for a long time. He emphasises the fact that by the time of her death, the petitioner had actually served the department for about 15 years. As a result, the counsel contends that a case for the regularisation of her services is prima facie made out. He further points out that if the department had considered her suitable to teach the middle class and allowed her to continue on the post for about 15 years, it cannot say that she was not fit to be regularised now. Still further, the learned counsel points out that various other teachers, including the seven persons mentioned in the additional affidavit, had been regularised by the department in spite of the fact that they did not fulfil the prescribed qualifications.
10. The fact that the department had regularised the services of seven teachers in spite of their not fulfilling the requisite qualifications has not been denied. In spite of that, I am unable to hold that a writ of mandamus or any other direction can be issued to the respondents to repeat the mistake. Regularisation of the services of the persons, who did not fulfil the prescribed qualification was improper. The Court cannot direct the department to repeat the impropriety. Nor can any direction etc. be issued on the ground that the action of the department is discriminatory.
11. Mr. Vimal points out that in case the department considers the case of the petitioner, the members of the family shall be able to get some retirement benefits as Smt. Santosh had completed 15 years of service.
12. It is undoubtedly a hard case. She had served as a S.V teacher for a long time. In the normal course of events, retirement benefits could have accrued. It is also worthy of notice that Smt. Santosh had passed B.A-1 examination. It has also been mentioned that she had qualified the Prabhakar examination which made her eligible appointment as a Language teacher. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had served about 15 years and the fact that while working she had improved her qualification, the department may consider the claim of the petitioner's legal representatives for the grant of retirement benefits, like gratuity etc. Subject to this, I find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
13. Petition dismissed.