P&H HC Upholds Ad Hoc Clerk’s Termination After She Failed English Typing Test Required By Her Service Extensions

In brief

The question

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s ad hoc service for failing to pass the English typing test, and the Labour Court’s award upholding it, disclosed an illegality or other ground warranting interference under Articles 226/227.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner had shown no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the termination order dated 30 June 1995 or the Labour Court’s award dated 17 July 2001 warranting writ intervention.

It also directed

The petition was dismissed.

01Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a clerk on an ad hoc basis for a fixed term of 89 days from 27 May 1992.

¶ 1

Her appointment was extended periodically; the extension orders required her to pass Punjabi and English typing tests at 30 words per minute.

¶ 1

Although she had passed the Punjabi test, she failed the English test, including in attempts in 1995.

¶ 1

The Board terminated her services on 30 June 1995.

¶ 1

The Labour Court rejected her industrial dispute, holding that the termination was not illegal and fell within Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶ 1

She then sought, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, to quash the termination and award and obtain reinstatement, regularization and back wages.

¶ 1–3, 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s ad hoc service for failing to pass the English typing test, and the Labour Court’s award upholding it, disclosed an illegality or other ground warranting interference under Articles 226/227.

¶ 1, 7–8, 11

ii.2. Whether the petitioner could challenge the typing-test condition after accepting extensions subject to that condition and appearing for the tests without protest.

¶ 4–6, 10

iii.3. Whether the petitioner had a vested right to continue in ad hoc employment until regular appointments were made.

¶ 9–10

03Law Applied

Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 excludes from “retrenchment” termination resulting from the non-renewal of a contract of employment or termination under a contractual stipulation; the Labour Court applied this provision to the petitioner’s fixed-term appointment.

¶ 7

The Court relied on Harjot Kamal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(4) SCT 33, for the principle that an ad hoc employee has no vested right to remain in service until regular appointments are made and that service may be terminated in accordance with the appointment terms.

¶ 9

It also applied the principle against approbating and reprobating: a person who accepts and acts upon an employment condition cannot ordinarily challenge that same condition only after an adverse outcome.

¶ 10

The Court assessed the challenged orders within its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227.

¶ 1, 11

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 Section 25FSection 2

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s appointment was expressly ad hoc and for fixed periods, and the extension orders made passing the English typing test a condition of continued service.

¶ 5, 7

She was given multiple opportunities but failed to qualify.

¶ 5, 7

The Court also noted that she had participated in the tests without protest and challenged the condition only after termination, so she could not accept extensions on that basis and later reject the condition when its outcome proved unfavourable.

¶ 10

Further, she identified no specific error showing that the Labour Court’s findings were perverse or legally unsustainable, and the principle in Harjot Kamal Singh negated any vested right to continue in ad hoc service pending regular recruitment.

¶ 8–10

The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with either the termination order or the Labour Court’s award.

¶ 11