The principle of treating all similarly situated persons similarly is emphasized, and the court rejects the contention that the petitioner lacked the requisite qualification for regularisation.

1. On 23rd June, 1998, the petitioner was appointed, against a vacant post of Nursery Teacher in the respondent no. 4-School (hereinafter referred to as “the School”) which, at that time, was known as the Central Academy Senior Secondary School. The order of appointment stated that the appointment was against a vacant post of Nursery Teacher on ad-hoc basis till a regular appointment was made, and was on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs.1,500/-.

2. Vide orders dated 26th June, 1999 and 29th April, 2001, the petitioner was again appointed as Nursery Teacher, with effect from 1st July, 1999 and 1st July, 2001. In each case, the appointment was termed “ad-hoc”.

3. On 3rd July, 1996, the School was taken over by the Directorate of Education (hereinafter referred to as the “DOE”) and has, thereafter, remained directly under the control and management of the DOE.

4. Vide her representations dated 17th April, 2000 and 13th June, 2000, the petitioner sought regularisation.

5. The petitioner was not regularized. Instead, on 30th April, 2001, the petitioner’s services were laid off. However, thereafter, vide letter dated 1st July, 2001, the petitioner was again appointed, on ad-hoc and temporary basis, till 30th April, 2002.

6. There is a positive averment, in the writ petition, that, after the School was taken over by the DOE on 1st April, 1997, all teachers were being appointed on temporary/ad-hoc basis, for a period of 10 months at a time, and there has been no regular appointment of teachers. By doing so, the petitioner would contend, the School is ensuring deprivation, to such teachers, of the benefits available, had they been regularly appointed. The petitioner’s contention is that, as she had completed more than 240 days in each academic year, she was entitled to regularisation.

7. The petitioner has also pointed out, in the writ petition, that she was actually considered for regular appointment by a “DPC”, which met on 21st June, 2001; however, no result, of the said consideration, was ever declared.

8. In these circumstances, the petitioner moved this court by means of WP(C) 1909/2002, seeking regularisation. In the said writ petition, the following interim order was passed, on 11th March, 2005 :

“W.P.(C) 1909/2002

There seems to be no justification for treating the Petitioner differently to the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 1053/2001. She is already receiving a consolidated salary where it is the contention that she should have been placed in the appropriate pay-scale.

This is the question which is to be adjudicated upon. Prima facie, she should be paid for the summer vacations. Counsel for the Respondent states that needful be done.

Rule.

CM 3280/2002 in W.P.(C) 1909/2002

Interim orders dated 21.03.2002 are confirmed.

The application stands disposed of.”

9. It may be noted, here, that the writ petitioner in WP(C) 1053/2001 was one Harbhajan Kaur, appointed in the Central Academy School itself, as a Physical Education Teacher, like the petitioner, after the School was taken over by the DOE.

10. WP(C) 1053/2001, filed by Harbhajan Kaur, came to be allowed by this court vide a detailed judgment dated 5th April, 2010. One of the contentions advanced, by the respondents, to contest the claim of Harbhajan Kaur for regularisation, was that she was not qualified for regular appointment. This contention was, dealt with, by the learned Single Judge, by observing thus :

“While on the one hand it is contended that the petitioner is not qualified, on the other hand it is pleaded that the petitioner can apply for regular appointment as and when made. It is found paradoxical by this Court that the authorized officer before making the appointment to be post of PET even if on a temporary/ad-hoc basis would appoint an unqualified person. The authorized officer is deemed to have satisfied himself of the qualification of the petitioner as a PET before appointing her. It might have been understandable if the same was not done the first time when the petitio