Chandigarh: Punjab High Court and Haryana have set aside the appointment of 98 Punjab Assistant District lawyers (Agas) which was originally appointed on the contract but whose services were packaged by the state government under the regularization policy in March 2011.
However, HC on Friday, that the state can defend it as Contract employees subject to initiates the appointment process directly to the post within six months.
“On the regularization date on October 8, 2013, the 1989 regulation was revoked by the 2010 rules, which provided an appointment of a 100% meeting through direct recruitment.
Thus, it is clear that the rules framed in the implementation of the power provided by the provisions.
For article 309 the constitution has been violated.
The 2010 Regulation also shows that services only consist of fennel and these posts are group b.
There is no regularization on Group-B posts permitted.
If at all …
the need for a tendency to be bitten from the start so we are not faced on the day when the promise is made For groups – posts also through regularization processes, “HC has been held.
Justice Sudhir Mittal from HC has passed this order while allowing a petition bench submitted by Gorinder Singh and the others to revoke regularization orders 98 surrender in the state.
The Punjab government issued an ad on October 17, 2009, invited applications for 98 posts on contracts.
The appointment for one year or until routine recruitment and the same thing must be stopped without passing each order on the settlement of the term contract unless the same has been improved.
There were no violations of regularization policies because there were no posts made: the election of Punjabtheir was made according to the district level committee and the appointment order on February 16, 2010, was issued.
Order appointments also contain provisions for the contract period extension.
On March 18, 2011, the registration policy was issued by the Punjab government, which according to him, the regularization of contractual employees must be influenced from April 1, 2011.
Or at the completion of the three-year service on which contracts later.
This decision was questioned before HC by the Applicant.
However, the state government argues that the appointment was carried out after the transparent process as directed by the Assessment of the High Court of High Court on May 6, 2009, in the case of Arvind Thakur and thus, their initial appointment could not be said to return.
Therefore, they have the right to regularization based on policy on March 18, 2011.
The state also argues that there are no posts made separately for private respondents for regularization and consequently, there is no violation of regularization policy.
The 1989 rule clearly shows that the post is a class III post and thus, there is no illegality in the order of regularization, argues the state.
After hearing all parties, the High Court argued that this 1989 rule applies to them and cannot be accepted as the date of regularization, this stands revoked and thus, the argument is wrong.
HC, however, clarify that the state can continue as contract employees subject to initiation of the appointment process directly to the post within six months.
They will also be eligible to apply for the post and remember the facts and circumstances of this case, directed that the provisions of the upper age limit will be relaxed for them.
The process must be completed in one year, ordered the court.