Long continuous service and rectification of initial irregularities justify the regularization of employees appointed on an ad-hoc basis, as per established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

1. The two special appeals are being decided together as they involve a common question of law. The appellant-Jujhar Singh in Special Appeal No.200 of 2024 was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 31.8.1987 as an Assistant Teacher in CT grade in the institution known as P.N.V. Inter College, Chilli (Muskara), Hamirpur. His appointment on ad-hoc basis was also approved on 11.9.1987. Similarly, the appellant-Devendra Singh in Special Appeal No.167 of 2024 was appointed on ad-hoc basis on the post of Assistant Teacher in CT grade on 26.2.1989. His appointment was also approved on 25/26.7.1989. However, the services of both the appellants were terminated on 17.10.1989 by the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur on the allegation that the appellants had been posted on such posts which were in excess of the sanctioned strength. Aggrieved thereof, the two appellants jointly filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989 (Jujhar Singh & Anr. vs. District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur & Ors.). On 4.12.1989, the High Court in Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989, passed an interim order whereby the order dated 17.10.1989 was kept in abeyance. Thereafter in pursuance of the interim order granted on 4.12.1989, the appellants-petitioners continued to work and also they continued to receive their salaries. On 31.3.2006, it so happened that the appellants- petitioners were absorbed against substantively vacant posts. The order dated 31.3.2006 is being reproduced here as under :-

2. To put the record straight, it may be noted that the Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989 was dismissed as having become infructuous on 17.10.2001. The order dated 17.10.2001 is being reproduced here as under :-

“The office has placed this writ petition in the group of cases relating to service matter on account of efflux of time, presuming suggesting that the writ petition has become infructuous on account of efflux of time. Be that as it may, since no one turns up on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed.”

3. This order was not known to the appellants-petitioners. However, when the petitioners came to know of the order dated 17.10.2001, they filed an application for recalling of the order dated 17.10.2001. When the case was taken up on 8.3.2010, the order dated 17.10.2001 was recalled and on the same day it was got dismissed as not pressed. Despite the order dated 8.3.2010 being passed by the High Court by which the Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989 was dismissed as not pressed, the petitioners- appellants continued to function and were paid their regular monthly salary on the strength of the order dated 31.3.2006. After a passage of quite some time i.e. on 1.6.2017, the Management/Principal of the college was put to notice by the District Inspector of Schools to explain as to on what basis they were paying the petitioners their salary. They were also required to provide the order dated 8.3.2010 by which the Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989 was dismissed as not pressed. This notice which was sent by the Committee of Management/Principal was challenged by the petitioners jointly in Writ Petition No.34860 of 2017 and in that writ petition on 4.8.2017, this Court passed an order by which the order dated 1.6.2017 was stayed. The interim order dated 4.8.2017 is being reproduced here as under :-

“It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are working since 1987 and 1989 respectively. Previou