Ajesh Kumar & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

  

      



!"#$%&#'()($*+,-(./ 0/1// 


 

  
 





 



+  23 4 5 

 

-#)#*"
 




 



 
 






!
"






66666


 04

3


# 
!



$%%&









# 

 



'





(

  


 
 
)



+*
 


 



 


! 





"


 



+-

+.
/
0

 !


 
1 
 
 
#

 
 



2!

3

445

*!

+ 444


 !
# '
1 
 






! 6


787-$%%9
2


+-5


(

  

# :

'

 !6 !

 !

  

#


 !
;



  

-$7-$%%9
1< !


4 # 
 
!


+.5
# 1
  



!
# ' 
#
 
 !
 


=
  


-$7$$%%9
# 

1

(
#
 
 
7$7/$%%9




! 
    


 
# 

1

(
"


*
*!


444






 
)

6 
)



#   !!
 !
# '
1 

 




*!

+444






(

  

 




"

+>
*!

+4?


 '




!

8;7+%;7

 

/978$%%$
2


+95 
 


!




)
2 #


 
)

5

$/77+ /7.7

< !


!

#
4@4

''



A$
 
!'

!

7-$7$%%8
2


+85
@ 

A-
 



 


$-$$$%%8
2

+&5

!






)63)+44





 -

#


$778/77-
4.

When called out for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioners is covered by judgment dated 14.10.2021 rendered by this Court in CWP No.7370-1997 titled as 'Anil Kumar Mehta Vs. State of Haryana and others'.

5.

Learned State counsel controverts the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.

7.

I may like to refer to my opinion rendered in Anil Kumar Judgment, ibid, relevant whereof is reproduced herein below:


         


 



 

  !   
 "#

 $ 
 %    
 
 % % 
& %  % '
  %% ((( %% %  % '%! % &
%
% )* %
% 
&% %  "  
+
   ,    - % % " 

%
%  %


%"

&%    
 &%. %
  /

/

/ %  " 
+ 
% 
 %
 -%% ((( %% 
 &  
  *
%
 * 


%   

& 
  -%% ((( %%   %%  
"  (  %%   
"&% "


& %  "  
+
   , %  %%
  
'
&% 0
 
 



 ) "     


! 
 & 


  ! %%     %   
+
! /

/

/ %     %%%%
  *
%
 * 


%!  

  

%   

&  %
 2 !
%3
%"

&
%
3


 

 %
  
& %  ( 
 
%! "%&
&
 


!& 
!
 "
%"
 
  

%  *
%
 * 


%   
  
+
3"%%/

/

/ 

  (      % 
& 
%
3


 



 

     4& !   - 
 










!"
  * 


%
"%5  6!  ((
% 
 %%%%
  ()( 

  "
 



  

&% 777   777  777 8/ 777 777 777 (%
%!&9 %
&
  
& 


 


%'

%&% %  
 
  % %
  %&   &  
 


 % 

 ( %    4& :


 



 !

%

"
"%
  
%
%5 6((
 -%  /

/

/  ) & 
! 
% % 
3
  "  %
& "&  % "%*  
   






 

 "&
  


   ;< / %  /38  

/

8 
%
 %
%% 
"&
&!! 
! 








 &" 
  %% 
%
%
%    %
  %
 
  (! !   
 %%%%

%  
&
 
%  
% %  
  

 
% 
%

  -!% "
%"

 8 %  %   %
!  


% ! 
    81

  = 

 >
%%  "& % :  / 

 
%  
   /

/

 
%


.%%
%
 ?-. 
% "

 
    %"
%
  ?,.%4@
-3@

!
%% %
   
   /



 

 A


%


.%%
%%%(((%%5  6((
%% )

%"
 %* 
%
"
% %%& %% "




%
%

%BAC   
 & 8.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment, it is thus borne out that in the context of earlier policy/decision of Haryana Government dated 11.05.1994, the Supreme Court has already noted in 'Amrit Lal Versus State of Haryana', 1999 AIR (SCW) 4697 that the qualifications for the post of Water Pump Operator Grade II were prescribed by way of two alternatives i.e. a) either an ITI certificate or b) being literato and having minimum experience of 5 years. 9.

Adverting to the policy Instructions dated 11.05.1994 (supra), the same were meant for regularization of services of work charged/casual/daily rated employees as is evident from the perusal of Amrit Lal Judgment, ibid.1< ! 
4
787-$%%9
2


+-5
# 
# 

4


+.5
!

# <   

-



, 



-$7$$%%9
4

#



!'1!
<   


-$7$$%%9


# 

 '


4@4





1 '


#
  
# :
, 



-



$7
 '








A$
/

-
#


7$78$%%7
7%$$$%%$
7$79$%%7
 !

!!


#




 



!

+


3

+44

*
@
  


6# !!
!






!

4@4



@




 


<
 



, 



-$7$$%%9

$$

 !


 




  '


'


4




#
 



!'1!






B


 
)

=
#
+

B3

=
 
*
# 


*!

C444

#
 
 
7$7/$%%9

 


! 

787-$%%9
!
  
!


+.5
$/




'







4

 


 
 



!'

 !



 '  
2

5

!

1!









 !




  




 

1
$-




'!

!!#





(

  


 
#
 
 
7$7/$%%9

 


1  
 '


'









6 '  #
!!
 < !
 


1 
! '
#
 
D
;
E



!!

 !


   
$.
A !
,


1



#
 

-
 
 



#  



 
! '
#









     ,-(./ 0/1//



3
 : '6  
F6A
3  1!
F6A