SUNITA SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner graduated from Delhi University and also holds diploma in Typing andShorthand. She applied for the post of Steno-cum-Typist in response to advertisementdated 15.1.94 issued by Respondent No. 2, namely, Export Credit GuaranteeCorporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent Corporation). Writtentest and Typing test were conducted on 8.10.94. Petitioner undertook the said tests.Thereafter she received letter dated 18.10.94 informing her to appear before theInterview Board on 11.11.94. List of successful candidates was declared by respondentNo. 2 for appointment to the post of Steno-cum-typist. Name of the Petitioner,however, appeared in the waiting list at Serial No. 9 for general categolry candidatefor appointment in Delhi region.

(2.) Petitioner was, however, taken in the employment of respondent-corporationw.e.f. 1.8.95 for a period of three months i.e. upto October, 1995. Since parties are atdispute about the circumstances under which the petitioner got the appointment andintimately face termination, it would be better to state the respective versions.

(3.) The petitioner admits that her name appeared in the waiting list. However, shehas averred in the petition that as one Mr. Chandra Mohan selected against permanentpost did not join the duty, petitioner was directed to join the services as Steno-cum-typist w.e.f. 1.8.95 against the existing one permanent post and in these circumstancesshe joined the duties against the permanent post. She, however, admits that she wasgiven the appointment for 90 days but was given assurances that her services shallberegularised. The services of the petitioner continued even after 90 days but givingartificial break which was only on paper as by changing the name of the petitionerfrom Sunita to Son. In this way she worked with the respondents upto 30.7.97. Due toefficiency shown by her, Regional Office, Delhi even recommended the case of herregularisation vide letters dated 3.6.97 and 167.97. However, on 31.7.97 when shewent to the office for their daily duty, she was not allowed to join the duties andaggrieved against this oral order of termination she personally met the respondentsand thereafter submitted representations on 12.8.97, 5.9.97, 20.10.97 to recall theorder of termination. Respondent-Corporation vide, letter dated 16.6.97 informed thepetitioner that termination order cannot be withdrawn and her services cannot beregularised. She again submitted representation dated 16.10.97 in response towhich she received letter dated 28.10.97 asking her to contact Regional Office atDelhi. However, on contacting Regional Office at Delhi she was given evasive replyand she again submitted representation dated 22.1.98. In reply she received letterdated 10.2.98 asking her to submit her proof of employment which she did However,she was not taken back in the employment and instead one Sh. Sant Lal, a fresherwas appointed in her Place. In these circumstances, she was constrained to file thepresent writ petition.