Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 350
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Ramesh Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 30633 of 2019
Decided On : 27-04-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Malik, Mr. Samrat Malik.
Ms. Kirti Singh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel in employment disputes, especially in cases where employees are not at fault and significant time has passed since their appointment.
Headnote:
Equitable Estoppel - Employment Dispute - Civil Writ Petition No. 30633, 30498, 30519, 30540 and 30640 of 2019 - Doctrine of equitable estoppel - Civil Writ Petition No. 7062 of 2003, Division Bench decision on 01.07.2004 - Ramesh Kumar (supra) - Division Bench judgment recognizing the consequences of uprooting the petitioners and declaring it inappropriate to throw them out of service
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the dispute over the dispensing of services of petitioners who were appointed as Canal Guards after irregularities in the selection process. The government sought to dispense with their services due to the cadre of Canal Guards being declared a diminishing cadre and converted to Beldar.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel saved the services of the employees, especially considering the long passage of time and the fact that the petitioners were not at fault. The court allowed the writ petitions and declared that the petitioners shall be permitted to continue in service, leaving it to the government to adjust them by creating supernumerary posts or otherwise.
Issues: The main issue was whether it would be appropriate to permit the State to dispense with the services of the petitioners after a long period, particularly when they were not at fault and when the posts were lying vacant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the doctrine of equitable estoppel and the recognition of the consequences of uprooting the petitioners after a long passage of time.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were permitted to continue in service, with the government given the discretion to adjust them by creating supernumerary posts or otherwise.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 30633, 30498, 30519, 30540 and 30640 of 2019 as the identical issue of law and facts arise for adjudication. Learned counsel for the parties are also ad-idem that these writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The facts are not in dispute.
3. Pursuant to a recruitment notice for 750 posts of Canal Guards, approximately 25000 applications were received. The petitioners, in all the aforesaid petitions, on being selected under general category were appointed on 01.01.2009. The selection was embroiled in the litigation as the authorities committed irregularities. In Civil Writ Petition No. 18416 of 2009 (Satyawan vs. State of Haryana and Others), the Court vide order dated 08.09.2010 gave permission to the authorities to take appropriate steps for removal of illegalities/ irregularities. The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of on 13.02.2014 after noting that the remedial steps have been or are being taken. When the officials were about to complete the aforesaid exercise, Ram Bhagat, a candidate filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11929 of 2015, contending that the candidates, who had applied under BCA category and had secured higher marks were liable to be considered for selection under the general category in view of the government instructions. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 02.12.2016. In view of the aforesaid directions issued on 02.12.2016 in the subsequent writ petition, the petitioners were served with show cause notice on 08.03.2019 and after granting personal hearing the services of the petitioners were dispensed with vide order dated 16.11.2019. On 22.10.2019, the Court granted interim protection to the petitioners and thus the petitioners have continued in the service. It is significant to note that out of total 750 posts of Canal Guards, 70 posts were selected for being appointed in the office of Superintending Engineer, Loharu Water Service Circle, Bhiwani. The petitioners were selected against the aforesaid 70 posts. It is important to note that the respondents have taken a stand that vide decision dated 21.06.2018, the cadre of Canal Guards has been declared diminishing cadre and on 21.06.2019 the posts of Canal Guards have been converted to Beldar. The petitioners are occupying Grade-D posts. The petitioners have made positive assertion that 20 posts of Canal Guards in a general category are lying vacant in Loharu Circle which has not been controverted while filing written reply.
4. This Bench has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper-book.
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioners does not dispute the correctness of the decision taken by the Government to accommodate the candidates who although applied under reserve category but secured higher marks and therefore entitled to adjusted against the vacancies of the general category. However, he submits that the respondents have overlooked the human problem. He submits that the petitioners are not at fault and now after a period of more than a decade, it would not be appropriate to dispense with the services of the petitioners, particularly when the posts are lying vacant. He in support of his argument relies upon various judgments passed by the courts from time to time including Civil Writ Petition No. 7062 of 2003, decided by the Division Bench on 01.07.2004. He invokes the doctrine of equitable estoppel and submits that the decision of the respondents in dispensing with the services of the petitioners is not sustainable.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State while defending the decision contends that as a consequence of the exercise undertaken by the government pursuant to the directions of the courts, the services of the petitioners have rightly been dispensed with. She contends that since the cadre of the Canal Guards is a diminishing cadre therefore, the co
