203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.02.2026 Barjinder Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dilshad Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondent-PUNSUP.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the advertisement (Annexure P-32) to the extent of inviting applications for recruitment of Drivers (17 posts) and also a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Drivers.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that petitioners were appointed as Drivers on contract basis in the year 2006 as discernible from their appointment letters (Annexures P-3 to P-15). He further submits that they have been continuously working on the post of Driver for the last 19 years, without there being any complaint to their work and conduct, against a fixed monthly salary of Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioners have been constantly requesting respondent No.2 to regularize their services and also moved representations dated 17.09.2008 and 07.04.2011 to this effect, which remained unheeded. However, instead of regularising the services of the petitioners, respondent No.2 has invited applications for recruitment to various posts including 17 posts of Drivers vide advertisement dated 30.04.2011 (Annexure P-32) in The Tribune.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners do not have the minimum educational qualification of middle pass with Punjabi language, as required for their regularization to the post of Driver. In any case, the petitioners were not engaged by employing the prescribed procedure and therefore, they are not entitled to regularization of service in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners had not even acquired the status of work charge or ad hoc employees and thus, they cannot do not possess a vested right for regularization.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance it transpires that the petitioners have been continuously serving the respondent-Corporation as Drivers since their initial appointment in the year 2006. The respondent-Corporation was aware throughout this time period that the essential qualification for the post of Driver includes passing middle school with Punjabi, which the petitioners did not satisfy. At no stage did the petitioners engage in any misrepresentation with regards to their educational qualifications and as such, they cannot be made to face the brunt of the laxity displayed by the respondent-Corporation in engaging their services for about two decades, against the prescribed norms.

Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are incompetent or that their job has a temporary nature, as evident from the fact that the respondent-Corporation has taken benefit of the services of the petitioners for decades since they first joined in the year 2006. Thus, it would not satisfy objective standards of reason and justice to deny the petitioners the fruits of regularization citing lack of educational qualifications and conduct a fresh recruitment process to the posts they have been serving at since the year

2006.

5. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long term employees are engaged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the perennial nature of the services rendered by them. The State, being a constitutional employer, cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees under the garb of lack of