The extension of the policy for the private respondents was arbitrary and the regularization violated the 2010 Rules. The Court emphasized that no employee can be permanently appointed on a public post except in accordance with the Constitutional scheme.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR MITTAL, J.

1. This judgment shall decide CWP-20333-2016 and CWP-7011-2018 as identical questions of fact and law are involved therein. For ease of disposal, facts are being extracted from CWP-20333-2016 titled as Gurinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others.

2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing orders of regularization of the private respondents. In CWP-7011-2018, prayer has also been made for quashing order dated 14.06.2017, whereby, the services of the private respondents were confirmed post-regularization as well as for quashing of tentative seniority list dated 21.02.2018. If, the order of regularization is set aside, the subsequent order of confirmation shall automatically be set aside and thus, the legality and validity of the same is not being considered. It is also to be noted that there is no challenge to the legality of regularization policy dated 18.03.2011.

3. Undisputed facts which have come to light on the basis of the pleadings of the parties are that in the year 2008, CWP-12194-2008 titled as Arvind Thakur Vs. State of Punjab and others was filed for directions to the respondents to fill up the vacant posts of Deputy District Attorneys/District Attorneys/Assistant District Attorneys as the same was affecting the functioning of the subordinate Courts. Vide detailed judgment dated 06.05.2008, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State of Punjab to revive posts which had been abolished on account of austerity measures, review the cadre strength and create additional vacancies as the requirement of Public Prosecutors/Assistant Public Prosecutors was much in excess of the existing sanctioned posts and to appoint candidates on contractual basis till the time regular appointments were made. This direction was issued as the State had expressed its inability to make wholesale appointments in the year 2009. The State had submitted that 40% appointments would be made in the year 2009 and the remaining 60% appointments would be made in the years 2010-11. This Court permitted the State to fill up the regular posts in the staggered manner as suggested, but issued directions to make stop gap arrangements by appointing contractual employees. It also needs to be highlighted that there was a great shortfall in the availability of Assistant District Attorneys (hereinafter referred to as the ADAs). Thus, a proposal dated 30.06.2009 was floated for creation of more posts of ADAs. The proposal was reiterated in subsequent communications, the last of which were dated 27.04.2012 and 24.01.2013.

4. Meanwhile, the Government of Punjab issued an advertisement dated 17.10.2009 inviting applications for 98 posts of ADA on contract basis. Appointment was for a period of one year or till regular recruitment and the same was liable to be terminated without passing any order on completion of the term of contract unless the same had been enhanced. The private respondents i.e. respondents No.6 to 92 applied. Their selection was made by District Level Committees and order of appointment dated 16.02.2010 was issued.

5. The appointment order also contained a provision for extension of the contractual period. Respondents No.4 and 5 had been appointed earlier in the year 2006. On 18.03.2011, a regularization policy was issued by the Government of Punjab, according to which, regularization of contractual employees was to be effected from 01.04.2011 or on completion of three years’ service on contract whichever was later. New posts were not to be created for the purposes of regularization nor any of the conditions of regularization were to be relaxed. The action was to be completed within a period of six months from the date of issuance of the policy being a one-time measure.

6. Despite judgment of this Court dated 06.05.2009 referred to hereinabove, the regular appointments had not been made and thus, this Court took suo moto notice of the matter through CWP-4902-2013 titled as Court on its own m