HC quashes regularisation of 100 assistant district attorneys in Punjab

The Punjab and Haryana high court has quashed regular appointments of 100-odd assistant district attorneys (ADAs) by the then SAD-BJP government in Punjab in 2013.

“The best available talent must be brought into public service and the fact that the private respondents (those appointed) failed to qualify in the open competition establishes that they are not the best. For these reasons, the regularisation of the private respondents cannot be held to be legal and valid,” the high court bench of justice Sudhir Mittal said, quashing the 2013 orders of their regularisation and asking the state to make appointments within one year and allowing it to continue with these ADAs till then.

The court was dealing with a bunch of petitions filed in 2018, in which those appointed through direct recruitments had challenged seniority list put out in 2018, in which these ADAs were placed above them, and also challenged their regularisation of 2013. “As many as 98 ADAs would be affected with this order,” said one of the counsels, Kapil Kakkar.

These appointments were made by the Punjab government in 2010, pursuant to high court orders on filling up posts of ADAs in district courts. The orders were that regular appointments be made in a phased manner, and to ensure that work does not suffer in courts, temporary appointments be made till then. In 2011, the state government came out with a regularisation policy for employees, just ahead of assembly polls.

However, they were not covered under this policy since only those with three years of service were to be considered. In 2013, the 2011 policy was extended in their case only, and their services were regularised with a cabinet decision in this regard.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court observed that the Constitution permitted employment in public service in accordance with the rule of equality only. “The mode of appointment through ‘regularisation’ was a clear violation of the constitutional scheme and was illegal. Thus, neither the executive nor the courts could direct ‘regularisation’ of persons appointed in violation of the relevant rules,” it said, adding that the right of the state to grant temporary appointments for special projects or to tide over emergent situations has been recognised, but with the rider that such appointments would come to an end on the project coming to an end.

The court further said that the 2011 policy was framed for employees of seven different departments. However, it was extended only for ADAs belonging to the prosecution and litigation department. “The policy was framed for the benefit of employees of the said departments as well, but the ADAs were singled out for preferential treatment. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was a necessity to extend the policy for granting permanent employment,” it said, adding the decision was taken by the state government, that too on the representation of these ADAs.

The court further found that their appointments were to be made under the 2010 rules, which provide for 100% appointment through direct recruitment. These posts are Group-B posts. No regularisation on Group-B posts is permissible. If at all, regularisation can be done, it can be done in the case of only Group-C or Group-D posts, it said.

“The tendency needs to be nipped in the bud so that we are not faced with the day when appointments are made to Group-A posts, too, through the process of regularisation. The situation appears to be absurd but not beyond visualisation,” the bench recorded, quashing the regularisation order.

Sign on to read the HT ePaper epaper.hindustantimes.com