Maya Ram And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others
!" "#$%&&
' ()* & + *+ ** ) ****
!"
#
$% & +,$" - #."/!01 & 2% ' " $ (# )* " #%" %# ("
+
,!$ ,3 ,-.
/ %# " +# ! # " ))0 + # 1
#2 $ # "2
45 61 +
6111 "" "$
3 " )* -99: 7* 7:
-990 -;
7:
-990 ,(# 6- 6) 6: "! . !$" +
"
+#
")0 )777,(# 8.
! " "-< -999,(# 60.$
- 2 -
" = ,+. > 0)97 )77- " ):
-7 )77) ,(# 6*.
,).
= "#
# " " ,(# 6-
6) 6:.
$2 ! #
26 !"+
6111+
61 !3 5 611
# ! $2 $ 2 !" "
?# " $! $
2 "
! "## !2 +
6111 "
! "
3 +
61
#"
# ++ 1 #
! 2 # # $ 3 ,:.
1 # 2 >! -99; ?# " 5 611 "
" # 2 #"
?# " " )< -- -99; "
"
"! !2
#$
#"
" 3#2 " 2 ?# " ! 2
/
! $ 2 " 7) )7)7 #! ,<.
= "# # # # $ $ "## $
2
- 3 -
"
+# +5 -878--998+5 > -*9*< -999 + "
+# "
3 $
+
6111
# %#" #" !
!2 # # +# # $ ! $
"## +
6111 # 2 # ! " # 3 22 $
$
# # 2
" #
2 ?# " "# 1/14> / + " ,(# 6; 6;'. ! 3 ! "#2 $
5 611 #"
"
+
61 " ! "
"# " 2 " @ +# @ # +# 2 ,8.
"# # $
$ "
?# "
#!
$
- < $ 22 2 +
6111
> ) :8$ 222 +
61 $2 22
"
" ?# " +
6111 #"
5 611 #" "
! $
2 -7A) ?# "
"#
- 4 -
# ?# 1/1 " 22
2 "# $ # "
" ?# " # #
$
3$-99:)77: #"
$ $
?# "
3"" "# $
"
" " " ( " $
$ " 3 ,0.
1 # !
@
2
2-;6)<
3
2
"
" "# $%&#& %'"()*+ ,"-:
7) )7-8$ " #
( " #"
"
2# "
# "
# 5
# 611 " 6" #"
" "
$ 2 4B2
5 # 611 "
" "
2 "# 1/1 " !
@( " / # # # C
# @ #( 2 # +
61 $ 5
611 # # +
# # # ! $2 "!
3+
61 +
6111 $ # ?# "
,*.
"#
- 5 - ,;.
-<$ 22"# # "& #D+@ 5 # 6114
# ,5 6114 .
/ 22 $
" " ! "## 2
"
"
6E 1 "
> ) : 8 $ 22 ! !& #DE@ $ #!" # ! $
& #D+@
,9.
1 !
) :8$ $2 +
61
3 #4 6"#6+ $ $ & #E
/ 2 "
1/1" "
!"
" ! # 2 $ #!
@ ! ( " ,-7.
/ 5 611 # " 5 611 "
" " #" 4++ # & #61"2 5 # 611 & #6111"2 1 # " $ !2 ?# " "# " # !2 & #6E 2 +# " "
) : 8 # 3 $ $
2& #E ! 2 3 2 & #E
- 6 - ,--.
2
> - < "
> - < $ 5 611 $ & #+ $! $ # ?# 3 # $ & # E 1 # !
#
!" 2!# " # "
/ "
2 ?# "1/1$ "# ?# $ "
, # . $ + "
+# " "# " "
$ +
111 $ $ " $ 3 $ 3 +
1 $
!2 # 6
16. Further, there has been no response on the part of the respondents to the specific contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners that prior to 31.03.1993, there was no sanctioned cadre post of the pump attendant except for one such post in District Rohtak. Thus, in the absence of any such sanctioned post, there was no occasion for engagement of any person as Water Pump Attendant and engagement would have been made only as an operator in all possibility. The contention of the State is thus rejected in view of the specific admission by the respondents.
17. The same thus leads this Court to the second objection which is as regards the academic qualifications and as to whether the said academic qualifications were conjoint or have to be read in isolation and subject to a candidate fulfilling either of the said conditions, he would be entitled for consideration of his claim for regularisation in terms of policy dated 11.05.1994. In this regard, it would be necessary to refer to the preceding judgments that have been passed.
18. It is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent State that claim of the similarly placed persons i.e. Puran Chand and others raised vide writ petition bearing CWP No.15051-1995 was allowed by this Court against which the
- 7 - Special Leave Petition (SLP) was also dismissed by the Hon9ble Supreme Court. Further, the Hon9ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the case of other similarly placed person in the matter of Amrit Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others, reported as 1999 AIR (SCW) 4687, referred to the judgment in the matter of Puran Chand and others Vs. State of Haryana (CWPNo.150511995) and held that the employees working thereunder would be deemed to be possessing a valid qualification on the basis of minimum experience of 05 years in field test and thus directed regularisation of their services. The contention of the respondent State that the petitioners therein did not possess the qualification for the post of water pump operator; a Group III post i.e.
either possessing ITI Certificate in Motor/ Tractor/ Diesel/ Electronic/ Mechanical 8or9 being Literate with minimum experience of 5 years in field test, was rejected. The contention of the respondent State in the aforesaid judgment before the Hon9ble Supreme Court was that twin conditions were prescribed and it was not an 8either/or9 (either of the two) condition. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads thus: - <3. The respondents contend that the appellant does not possess the requisite qualifications for the Class III post of Water Pump Operator, Grade II. The qualification which is prescribed for the post of Water Pump Operator, Grade II is either possessing an I.T.I.
Certificate 8or9 being Literate and having minimum experience of five years and field test, The Department has issued a letter dated 28-10-1994 and also a further certificate dated 3-2-1995 to the effect that the appellant (inter alia) possesses the prescribed qualifications and is a matriculate. In view thereof, we allow the appeals and direct that the appellant should be regularised in a Class III post as a Water Pump Operator, Grade II and be paid accordingly. The same view has been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Puran Chand and others v. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No. 15051/95) from which Special Leave Petitions were filed before this Court. This Court dismissed the Petitions by its order in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 2470024702/96 dated 19-8- 1997.= ,-).
/ # !$ ! "#
" "# " 2 $
2
$ $ ?#
-<
- 8 - ,-:.
>
-<$# " ?# !"4 " #2 "
#
$ 0F $ )
"" "
$! "
> ) : 8 " " # / (
" ! ,-<.
"" 2 %&&
+,$" - #."/!0
."/
1. Whether speaking/reasoned?
:
Yes/No
2. Whether reportable?
:
Yes/No