Rajidner Kaur vs Pb Urban Planning And Development Author

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-17042-2001 (O&M)
Rajinder Kaur …..Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Housing Development Board now known as
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority
and another ....Respondents
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 15.10.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 31.10.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on 31.10.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by : Mr. Sumeet Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Utsav Singh Bains, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. Chirag Suri, Advocate and
Mr. Aryan Katoch, Advocate
for respondent No.1.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ
of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.06.1995 (Annexure P-3/T),
passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner was terminated from
service and award dated 17.07.2001 (Annexure P-7), passed by
respondent No.2, whereby the termination order dated 30.06.1995 was
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-17042-2001 (O&M) 2
upheld. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing
respondent No.1 to reinstate and regularize the services of the petitioner
with back wages.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as pleaded in the writ
petition, are that vide office order dated 27.05.1992 (Annexure P-1/T),
the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk with respondent No.1 purely on
an ad hoc basis for a fixed period of 89 days. The petitioner cleared the
Punjabi Typing Test on 26.09.1992, within four months of her joining.
Her services were extended from time to time for successive periods of
89 days, without any break, till 30.06.1995. However, while granting
an extension w.e.f. 12.02.1994, an illegal condition requiring her to
pass the Punjabi and English Typing Tests was imposed. It is further
averred that in February 1993, all clerks working in the respondent-
department on 89-days basis, who had completed one year of
continuous service, were regularized despite not having passed the
Punjabi or English Typing Test. Since the petitioner had not completed
one year of service, her regularization was deferred, notwithstanding the
fact that she had already cleared the Punjabi Typing Test on 26.09.1992.
Subsequently, vide office order dated 30.06.1995 (Annexure P-3/T), her
services were terminated on the ground that she had not passed the
English Typing Test. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the
petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.07.1995 (Annexure P-
4/T) to the Chief Administrator, PUDA, Chandigarh, seeking
regularization of her services, however, no action was taken on the same
by the respondent-department. Consequently, the petitioner raised an
industrial dispute challenging the order of her termination before the
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-17042-2001 (O&M) 3
Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh. However, her claim was rejected, vide
award dated 17.07.2001, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
U.T., Chandigarh. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Written statement by way of an affidavit of Additional
Chief Administrator (HQ) PUDA at PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS
Nagar, on behalf of respondent No.1, has been filed, wherein it has been
stated as under :-
“xx xx xx xx xx
3. That the brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner
was appointed as a Clerk in the Punjab Housing
Developinent Board (now PUDA) on a purely adhoc basis
for a fixed period of 89 days vide Office Order dated
27.05.1992 (Annexure P-1), with specific condition that the
services of Petitioner can be terminated at any time
without any notice and the services of Petitioner had to
come to an end by efflux of time. Thereafter, on the request
of Petitioner, her ad hoc appointment was extended from
time to time for further periods of 89 days without any
break in service. Although the Petitioner qualified the
Punjabi Typing test on 26.09.1992, while granting a further
extension vide Order dated 05.02.1994, a specific
condition was incorporated in the extension order that the
Petitioner will have to pass Punjabi/English Type Test. It is
denied that an illegal condition of passing typing test
English and Punjabi was imposed in the extensions order
of petitioners because the Board, in its meeting, vide
Agenda Item No.53.26 dated 07.10.1980 had decided that
only those clerks will be considered for regularization, who
have passed English & Punjabi Type Tests. A copy of the
relevant extract of the Agenda Item No.53.26 dated
07.10.1980 is appended herewith as ANNEXURE R-1.
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-17042-2001 (O&M) 4
4. That while further extension was granted to the
Petitioner vide Order dated 02.08.1994, it was specifically
stipulated in extension order that she was required to
qualify the Punjabi/English Type Test at a speed of 30
words per minute during the extended period. It is
pertinent to mention that the said extension order further
provided that, in the event of her failure to pass the English
Typing Test at the prescribed speed of 30 words per minute
within the extended period, her services would be liable to
be terminated without any further notice.
5. That despite being afforded multiple opportunities to
the Petitioners, she failed to qualify the English Typing Test
at the speed of 30 words per minutes. It is relevant to
mention here that she had secured a speed of only 18 words
per minute during her test on 06.06.1995, which led to the
termination of her services with effect from 30.06.1995
(Annexure P-3).
xx xx xx xx xx”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that prior to
the enactment of The Punjab Regional and Town Planning and
Development Act, 1995 (for short, the ‘1995 Act’), no service rules or
regulations were in force in the respondent-department and that the
service conditions of its employees were governed by the Notification
dated 04.05.1994 issued by the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms, Government of Punjab. He has further
submitted that in terms of the said notification, the petitioner was
entitled to regularization of her services upon clearing the Punjabi
Typing Test on 26.09.1992 or, in the alternative, w.e.f. 27.05.1993, upon
completion of one year of service. However, despite fulfilling the
requisite conditions, her services were not regularized. He has further
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-17042-2001 (O&M) 5
argued that the initial appointment order dated 27.05.1992 (Annexure P-
1/T) did not stipulate any condition requiring the petitioner to qualify
the typing test and the subsequent incorporation of such a condition in
the extension orders is, therefore, illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the
principles of natural justice.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, while
referring to the averments made in the written statement, has contended
that, vide office order dated 05.02.1994, whereby the petitioner’s
services were extended for the period from 12.02.1994 to 11.05.1995, a
specific condition was incorporated in the extension order requiring her
to pass both the Punjabi and English Typing Tests at the speed of 30
words per minute within the extended period. However, the petitioner
could not pass the English Typing Test within the extension period.
Subsequently, vide office order dated 02.08.1994, it was reiterated that
the petitioner was required to qualify the English Typing Test at the
speed of 30 words per minute during the extended period of service,
failing which her services would be terminated without any further
notice. However, the petitioner again failed to pass the said English
Typing Test. He has further submitted that despite being afforded
multiple opportunities on 27.03.1995 and 06.06.1995, the petitioner
failed to qualify the English Typing Test, which ultimately led to the
termination of her services. He has further argued that the requirement
of passing the English Typing Test was not introduced pursuant to the
enactment of the 1995 Act, but formed an express condition of the
extension orders dated 05.02.1994 and 02.08.1994, in consonance with
the decision recorded under Agenda Item No.53.26 dated 07.10.1980
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-17042-2001 (O&M) 6
(Annexure R-1). He has further contended that having accepted the
aforesaid conditions and appeared in the typing tests without any
protest, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to approbate and
reprobate by questioning the very conditions subject to which her
services were extended. He has further submitted that similarly placed
Clerks, whose services were terminated along with the petitioner on
30.06.1995, had filed CWP No.11000 of 1995 titled as ‘Jasbir Chand
Vs. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and others’ ;
CWP No.12171 of 1995 titled as ‘Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Punjab
Urban Planning and Development Authority and others ’; and CWP
No.13812 of 1995 titled as ‘Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Punjab
and others’ which were dismissed by this Court, vide orders dated
27.11.1996, 15.02.1996 and 27.11.1996, respectively, in view of the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Harjot Kamal
Singh Vs. State of Punjab : 1996(4) SCT 33 .
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant documents.
7. Admittedly, the services of the petitioner were terminated,
vide order dated 30.06.1995 (Annexure P-3/T), on the ground that she
had failed to pass the English Typing Test. Aggrieved by the said order,
the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was answered by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, vide award dated
17.07.2001 (Annexure P-7) against the petitioner. The concluding
portion of the said award reads thus :-
“16. I have carefully perused the above submissions made
by the ld. representative for both the parties and also
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-17042-2001 (O&M) 7
considered the evidence available on the file and also gone
through the authorities relied upon by the ld. counsel for
both the parties and referred above. It is evident from the
evidence available on file that the appointment of the
worker was on 89 days initially -- vide Ex. M1. Then she
moved an application for another extension for 89 days, ---
vide Ex. M2 and she was given specific extensions for
appointment -- vide Ex. W3 to Ex. W11. On 12.5.94 the
worker was given extensions with the conditions that she
will clear the Punjabi and English type test at 30 words per
minute but the worker failed to clear the type test in
English. The worker was given another opportunity to
clear the type test in English. She was given three
opportunities to clear the test but she failed to clear the
type test. She was given specific extension, -- vide
appointment letter Ex. W8 and Ex. W9 with the condition
that she will clear the English Type within the extended
period but she failed to clear the English Type Test. The
result cards of the same are Ex. W3, Ex. W6, Ex. W7. The
worker was to be absorbed on the regular basis on her
clearing the English type test. She could not be absorbed
against the regular post as she did not clear English type
test, so the worker cannot claim that her termination is
illegal and was a colourable exercise of powers. The
termination of the services of the worker does not amount
to retrenchment as the same was done after the completion
of fixed period and the provisions of section 25(F) of the
Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the present
case. The authorities relied upon by the ld. representative
for the management reported as 1998(1) All instant
judgments 42 the Karnal Central Co-operative Bank
Limited Karnal versus The State of Haryana and others is
fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly
the similar situated persons also moved the Hon'ble High
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-17042-2001 (O&M) 8
Court on the same ground that their services were
terminated as they failed to clear the English Type test and
their writ petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble Punjab
and Haryana High Court.
17. In view of my above discussion, I hold that the
termination of the services of the worker in the present
case is not illegal and is covered under section 2(00) (bb)
of the Industrial Disputes Act and worker is not entitled to
any relief claimed for. This issue is, therefore, decided
against the worker and in favour of the management.”
8. Although, in the instant petition, the petitioner has
impugned the aforesaid award passed by the Labour Court, however,
she has not raised any specific ground to demonstrate as to how the
findings recorded by the Labour Court are erroneous or unsustainable in
law warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.
9. Furthermore, similarly situated employees, who were
terminated along with the petitioner had also approached this Court by
filing separate writ petitions, which were dismissed by this Court in
view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Harjot Kamal’s case (supra) , wherein it was held that the ad hoc
employee has no vested right to continue in service till regular
appointments are made and the ad hoc appointments made without
notifying the vacancies to employment exchanges and without
advertising the same to the general public, would be bad and no fault
can be found if services of such ad hoc employee are being terminated
in terms of appointment order. The relevant paras of the said judgment
reads thus :-
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-17042-2001 (O&M) 9
“8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we
are of the view that there is in no merit in this writ petition.
Apart from the fact that in view of the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Kiran Bala's case (supra)
concerning the same Department and dealing with the
similar type of an appointment order, the writ petition
having been dismissed, we are of the opinion that in view
of the judgments of the apex Court cited by the learned
counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has no right to
continue on the post and services can be terminated in
terms of the appointment. The ad hoc appointee is no way
higher in status than a temporary employee. As observed
above, in Kaushal Kishore Shukla's case (supra), it has
been observed by the apex Court that a temporary
employee has no vested right to continue on the post and
his services can be dispensed with in accordance with the
terms of appointment. If we omit the term of appointment
regarding the period of appointment, the end result will be
that the letter of appointment would become similar to the
order by which the writ petition of Surinder Kumar and
others were disposed of by this Court, which order was set
aside by the apex Court in State of Punjab v. Surinder
Kumar and others (supra). We have our reservations
regarding the observations made by the Division Bench of
this court in Gordhan Singh Gulia's case (supra) and Kiran
Bala and others' case (supra) but in view of the judgments
of the Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar and others' case
(supra) and Kaushal Kishore Shukla's case (supra), by
which we are bound under Article 141 of the Constitution
of India, we are not inclined to refer the matter to a larger
Bench. We hold that the petitioner had no right to continue
on the post and his services can be terminated in
accordance with the terms of appointment.
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-17042-2001 (O&M) 10
9. The matter can be viewed from another angle.
Supposing a person is appointed on ad hoc basis for a
particular period and his work is just average and the
employer is finding a much better person than him; is the
employer barred from giving employment to the subsequent
person who may be better than the earlier one or he is
bound to continue the earlier ad hoc employee till a
regular appointment is made ? We are of the view that no
fetters can be put on the powers of the employer to have the
best person for the job. However, if in a particular case, it
is alleged that this power has been exercised arbitrarily or
malafidely, the Courts would certainly go into that.
10. So far as the order of the Motion Bench dated July 8,
1996, in C.W.P. No.9392 of 1996, is concerned, it may be
observed that if the post is to last for more than three
months and the appointment having been made without
sending requisition to the Employment Exchanges under
the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of
Vacancies) Act, 1959, or without considering the cases of
other eligible persons by inviting applications though short
term advertisement the appointment of the petitioner would
be bad on that short score alone. If the vacancy is for a
period less than three months and the petitioner's services
are being terminated in accordance with the terms of
appointment, no fault can be found. It is not the case of the
petitioner that any reference was made to the Employment
Exchange or any advertisement was issued. The
appointment itself would be bad on that score. Further
even if there has been reference to Employment Exchange
or there has been advertisement as we have held earlier,
the petitioner does not get any vested right to continue on
the post.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this
writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.”
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-17042-2001 (O&M) 11
10. In the present case also the petitioner was appointed as Clerk
purely on ad hoc basis for the fixed period of 89 days without issuance of
any advertisement and as per her appointment order dated 27.05.1992
(Annexure P-1/T), her services could be terminated at any time without
any notice. Further, the petitioner was afforded ample opportunities to
qualify the English Type Test, however, she failed to clear the same which
was condition precedent. Having accepted the condition requiring her to
qualify the English Type Test and having participated in the said typing
test multiple times without any demur, the petitioner cannot be permitted
to turn around and challenge the very same condition only after the
outcome of the process proved unfavourable to her and after her
termination from service. Such conduct amounts to approbating and
reprobating, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, in the absence of
any legally sustainable ground to assail the said condition, the challenge
raised by the petitioner deserves to be rejected.
11. In view of the above, I do not find any perversity, illegality,
or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.06.1995 (Annexure P-3/T),
passed by respondent No.1-department and award dated 17.07.2001
(Annexure P-7), passed by respondent No.2-Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, U.T. Chandigarh, warranting interference by this Court in the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
12. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
31.10.2026 JUDGE
Kothiyal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.10.31 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document