The court affirmed that ineligible Extension Lecturers have no right to continue in service under the policy guidelines, emphasizing the State's authority to enforce eligibility criteria.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, A.C.J. (Oral)

CM-2296-LPA-2024

Application for condoning the delay of 1 day in filing the present appeal is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application duly supported by affidavit of the appellant and in view of the nominal delay. Delay of 1 day in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

2. CM stands disposed of.

LPA-934-2024

3. Consideration in the present appeal is to the order dated 15.03.2024 passed in CWP-6249-2024whereby the Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition wherein challenge had been raised to the order dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P-22) vide which reasoned order was passed by the Director General, Higher Education, Haryana keeping in view the fact that in an earlier litigation, filed by the appellant herein, certain directions had been issued regarding his right to continue on the post of Extension Lecturer.

4. The reasoning which prevailed with the Learned Single Judge was that the issue already stands decided on 15.12.2022 by a Division Bench of which one of us (G.S.Sandhawalia J.) was a Member in LPA-1257-2019 titled State of Haryana & others v. Dr. Kavita & another. The Learned Single Judge has, thus, come to the conclusion that ineligible Extension Lecturers had no right to continue in service in terms of policy guidelines dated 04.03.2020.

5. Counsel for the appellant has tried to convince us that in the policy itself, there is a protection granted and the removal could only be done under Clause 18 regarding the work and conduct not being found satisfactory and extension being sought. It is thus submitted that in the absence of any such finding, the removal order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-15) solely on the basis that the appellant was ineligible and his services were dispensed with as he did not have the educational qualifications i.e. NET/Ph.D. was not justified.

6. A perusal of the said order would also go on to show that while dispensing with the services, the Principal of the College-respondent No.3 where the appellant was employed had come to the conclusion that when the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners had been disposed of, there was no protection by any Court. Reliance upon Clause 18 is misconceived since it talks about an Extension Lecturer whose work and conduct is not found satisfactory and not of ineligible Extension Lecturer. Clause 2 protected the ineligible Extension Lecturers only to the extent that where the interim orders had been passed by Court, then appropriate applications had to be filed before the Court so that it could be brought to the notice of the Court that the policy dated 04.03.2020 has come into force. Said clauses read as under:

"2. Only such persons shall be engaged as Extension Lecturers who fulfill the Qualification/Eligibility as per the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group 'B' Service Rules applicable to Assistant Professor of Government Colleges (hereinafter referred to as 'Eligible Extension Lecturers'). Non-qualified persons engaged by the Principals shall be removed after coming into force of these policyhowever, the information about court protected ineligible extension lecturers shall be sent to Directorate prior to such action by the Principal concerned so that appropriate applications may be filed in the Hon'ble Court for vacation of stay/modification of orders in view of the present policy.

18. If the work and conduct of an extension lecturer is not found satisfactory, an explanation shall be sought by the concerned principal and if the same is not found satisfactory his/her engagement shall be discontinued."

7. Thus, fall-back upon Clause 18 is without any basis. A Division Bench of this Court in Suman Devi v. State of Haryana & others, 2020 (4) SCT 523 has held that the State is under no obligation to continue with the ineligible Extension Lecturers without any rhyme and reason. It is for the employer to see as to how to utilize its employee and how it wants to burden them with work. Merely because