Punjab and Haryana High Court sets aside appointment of 98 Assistant District Attorneys

Chandigarh, January 21

More than eight years after the services of 98 Assistant District Attorneys (ADA) appointed on a contract basis were regularised, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday set aside an order appointing them against the public posts by “a mode not envisaged by the rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution”.

Justice Sudhir Mittal, at the same time, made it clear that the state may continue with them as contractual employees, subject to the initiation of the direct appointment process within six months. The respondents-ADAs will also be eligible to apply for the posts. “Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that stipulation of the upper age limit shall be relaxed for them,” Justice Mittal added, while fixing a year’s deadline for the completion of the process.

The matter was placed before Justice Mittal after a bunch of petitions were filed against the state of Punjab and other respondents by Gurinder Singh and other petitioners through counsels Kapil Kakkar, Shivam Malik, Anurag Goyal, Parth Goyal and Amarjit Kaur. They were seeking the quashing of orders dated October 8, 2013, regularising the services of the respondents.

The Bench was told that the Punjab Government issued an advertisement dated October 17, 2009, inviting applications for 98 posts of ADA on a contract basis. While the process of selection was underway, order dated October 8, 2013, was passed regularising the services of the respondents.

Justice Mittal observed that the policy dated March 18, 2011, was framed for the employees of seven different departments. It was extended only for the ADAs belonging to the Prosecution and Litigation Department — a part of the Department of Home Affairs and Justice. It included the Jail Department and the Advocate General’s office.

Justice Mittal asserted: “The policy was framed for the benefit of employees of the said departments as well, but the ADAs were singled out for preferential treatment. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was a necessity to extend the policy for granting permanent employment.”

Justice Mittal added the direct appointment process had already been initiated and the posts occupied by the contractual employees could also have been filled up through the direct recruitment, maybe in a staggered fashion to ensure that the subordinate courts’ working was not adversely affected. “The preferential treatment, thus, given to the private respondents and that too on the basis of their own request is patently arbitrary,” Justice Mittal added.

GIVES A YEAR FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT

Justice Sudhir Mittal of the High Court made it clear that the state may continue with the Assistant District Attorneys as contractual staff, subject to the initiation of the direct appointment process within six months. Justice Mittal fixed a year’s deadline for the completion of the process.