AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of ITI Instructors from the date when they have completed 10 years' service, in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 (Annexure P-6) and as per the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.31304 of 2025 titled Joginder vs. State of Haryana and others and other connected matters (Annexure P-7), with all consequential benefits including arrears, fixation of pay etc. along with 12% per annum interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed as ITI Instructors against the sanctioned posts on contract basis between the year 2011 and 2014, after undergoing the prescribed selection process, and they have been working continuously since then without any break. The selection criteria for such appointments were prescribed by the Government vide Memo dated 29.07.2010 and subsequently revised vide letters dated 18.04.2011 and 30.03.2016, with the interview component having been removed to ensure transparency and merit (Annexures P-2 and P-3). He submits that the petitioners possess the prescribed qualifications and have completed more than 10 years of continuous service. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 (Annexure P-6), and submits that an employee cannot be kept in temporary service indefinitely and is entitled to consideration for regularization having regard to the length of service rendered. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.31304 of 2025, Joginder vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.12.2025 (Annexure P-7), wherein directions were issued for consideration of regularization of employees covered by the applicable policies and also of those who had completed more than 10 years of service as on 31.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that although the State preferred an appeal against the said judgment, the matter was disposed of in terms of LPA No.1092 of 2026, State of Haryana and others vs. Saroj Rani, with a direction to examine the individual cases of the employees in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in LPA No.1810 of 2025, titled as Aas Mohamand and others vs State of Haryana and others, this Court directed the employees to submit their comprehensive representations and directed the State to reconsider their claims by passing speaking orders. Accordingly, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P-8) upon the respondents seeking regularization of their services in the light of the aforesaid judgments but the same is still pending consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.
Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.
Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the legal notice dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2.
Disposed of, accordingly.