State of Punjab and Ors. v. Supreet Rajpal and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2007-11-13
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals disposed of; the matters are remitted to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, for fresh consideration in light of the judgment in Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CA No. 8745 of 2003, decided 7-11-2003), with no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of; remanded to High Court for fresh consideration in light of the cited precedent, with no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab and Ors.

Respondents

Supreet Rajpal

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Kuldip Singh
• R.K. Pandey
• H.S. Sandhu
• T.P. Mishra
• Ajay Pal

Counsels for Respondents

• Ugra Shankar Prasad
• S.K. Sabharwal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court appeal concerns the regularisation of services of part-time lecturers in the state education system. The High Court had directed the authorities to consider the respondents for regularisation de-hors the contractual clauses in the advertisements and appointment terms, and to place them in the regular pay scale if regularised. The appellants contended that the writ petitions did not seek regularisation and that the High Court’s order expanded relief beyond the prayers, and that the reliance on precedents was misplaced. The respondent-lecturers had argued that their contractual status and ad-hvertisement terms justified regularisation, and that the High Court’s direction was in line with prior jurisprudence on regularising part-time engagements. In deciding the appeals, the Court noted the peculiar facts and held that it would be appropriate for the High Court to deal with the matters afresh, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CA No. 8745 of 2003, decided 7-11-2003). The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, and the appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs. The judgment underscores that the remand should be guided by the cited precedent and the specific contractual context of the appointments.”

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State of Punjab and Ors. contended that the writ petitions did not seek regularisation of service, and that directing the authorities to consider regularisation de-hors the contractual clauses in advertisements and appointment terms expanded relief beyond the prayers. They argued the High Court relied on a precedent not directly applicable to part-time lecturers and that the matter ought to be remitted for fresh consideration only if the issues align with the disputed terms of engagement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents asserted that their petitions sought relief consistent with regularisation of service in line with the contract terms and advertisements. They argued that the High Court’s directions were a legitimate application of existing principles on regularising temporary/part-time appointments and that the matter warranted examination of pay scale placement if regularisation occurred, with due regard to the ongoing litigation and related precedents.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.	CA No. 8745 of 2003	Positive	Cited as controlling precedent to guide remand and fresh consideration in light of its reasoning on regularisation within peculiar factual contexts.
Ms. Maninder Kaur's case (supra)	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced in the judgment to affect considerations, but without elaborate application or binding effect detailed in excerpts.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

~·· \ A STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC. _v._ SUPREET RAJP AL AND ANR. ETC. NOVEMBER 13, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.J ## _Service Law:_ ## C C _Regularisation of service of part time lecturer-Filing of writ petitions by respondents-part time lecturers-:-Allowed by High Court directing Authorities to consider them for regularization-On appeal, Held: In the peculiar facts of the case, it would be appropriate for the High Court to deal with the matters a.fresh in the light of the judgment_ D _of Supreme Court in the case_ ofHarguru Pratap Singh & Ors. _v._ State of Punjab & _Ors.,-Thus, matter remitted to High Court for· consideration a.fresh._ The question which arose for determination in these appeals was as to whether the High Court was right in directing the appellants for regularization of services of the respondents-part time lecturers, though no such relief was sought for by them. E Appellants contended that the prayer in the writ petitions was not for regularization of the services and the relief sought for by them was different; and that by the impugned judgment, the High Court has directed to consider the case of the respondents for regularization _de-hors_ the contractual clause indicated in the advertisement and mentioned in the terms of appointment. F ~ ## Disposing of the appeals, the Court G HELD: On the peculiar facts of the case, it would be appropriate for the High Court to deal with the matters afresh in the light of what bas been stated in the decided case of _Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors._ v. _State of Punjab & Oi·s._ The matters are remitted to the High Court 1124 H 1125 .. STATE _v._ SUPREETRAJPAL [P ASAY AT, J.] for consideration afresh. [1127-B] _Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors._ v. _State of Purljab & Ors. etc.,_ C.A. No. 8745 of2003 (decided by Supreme Court on 7.11.2003), relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5165- B 5167of2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.12.2004 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 20036/03, 3766/04 & 7500/04. c Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, H.S. Sandhu, T.P. Mishra and Ajay Pal for the Appellant. Ugra Shankar Prasad and S.K. Sabharwal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D I DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Comt of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents who were appointed as part E time lecturers with the following directions: "In view of the above, the petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners for regularisation _de-hors_ of the contractual clause indicated in the advertisement and also the same having been mentioned in the tenns F of appointment. If regularised, they shall also be considered for being placed in the regular pay scale with the initial pay payable accordingly. This entire exercise be carried out by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It may be clarified that in view of the fact that the G State has filed special leave petition against the judgment rendered in _Ms. Maninder Kaur's_ case (supra), the result thereof _shall also_ affect the consideration and the relief grantable and granted to the petitioners. This fact, may be specifically mentioned in the orders H Jr STATEv. SUPREETRAJPAL[PASAYAT,J.] 1127 __, I pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly." A 6. It is also submitted that the case relied upon by the High Court has no relevance as it did not relate to part time lecturers and in fact related to some other part time engagements. It has also been submitted that in those cases also the matter has been remitted to the High Court. B 7. On the peculiar facts of the case, we feel it would be appropriate for the High Court to deal with the matters afresh in the light of what has been stated in _Harguru 's_ case (supra). The matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. 8. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. c S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.