JUDGMENT :

Jaswant Singh, J.

1. That the present petition has been filed seeking regularisation of service from 2.04.2016 along with all consequential benefits. The facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued in the year 2011 (Annexure P-1) by the Department of School Education, State of Punjab for filling up of 3442 vacancies in the Master Cadre in different subjects. The petitioner in the present case was offered appointment vide order dated 31.12.2012 as Punjabi mistress, after proper selection. The appointment order was issued in terms of the advertisement as per which the recruitment was made on contract basis for a lump sum pay for initial period of three-years. Upon completion of three years the candidate shall be considered for regular appointment, subject to his work and conduct being satisfactory. The said condition has been duly incorporated as Clause 20 of the appointment letter dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure P-2). The Department of School Education, State of Punjab issued an order dated 3.8.2015 (Annexure P-3) vide which decision was taken to regularize the services of all employees appointed in pursuance to advertisement Annexure P-1, subject to the satisfactory work and conduct and after verification of certificate and documents submitted by them at the time of recruitment. In pursuance thereof regularisation order dated 2.4.2016 (Annexure P-4) was issued by the respondents. However the case of the present petitioner had not been considered for regularisation. The petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court apprehending that her claim for regularization has not been considered only on the ground that she had completed her M.Ed. qualification through Non- Conventional mode/distance education mode from Vinayaka Mission University in the session 2009-2011. The petitioner had also submitted a representation dated 10.2.2017 (Annexure P-5) seeking regularization of services, however there was no reply from the respondents.

2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, this Hon'ble Court on 19.05.2017 granted interim protection to the petitioner, to the effect that in the meantime no adverse orders be passed against the petitioner, resultantly the petitioner is still continuing in service on contract basis. The respondents upon notice had filed a short affidavit dated 14.11.2017 as per which the stand taken by the state was that, as per policy of UGC Universities/Deemed universities cannot conduct courses through Distance Education without approval of specific courses and that these Universities are not authorized to conduct courses through study centres beyond territorial jurisdiction.

The respondents thereafter filed a short affidavit dated 17.12.2018 wherein reliance was placed upon the UGC (Institution Deemed to be University) Regulations, 2010 as well as upon public notice dated 27.6.2013 and 23.8.2013 letter issued by UGC to the effect that universities cannot be permitted to impart education through study centres/off-campus centres outside the territorial jurisdiction. In rebuttal, petitioner filed replication alongwith Annexure P-30 to P-57, which was taken on record. The documents appended have been discussed in the following paragraphs.

3. The counsel for the petitioner at the very outset stated that the petitioner was permitted to join on duty after verification of all the educational qualification submitted by the petitioner, which is also evident from the appointment letter dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure P-2) as per which the concerned District Education Officer was directed to check all the original educational qualifications submitted by the petitioner, before permitting to join, thus having being served successfully for a period of more than 5 years it will be unjust to not regularize the services of the petitioner. Further it has been argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possess essential qualification as required under Punjab State Education Class-III (School Cadre) Servic