MALTI SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed after the earlier petition filed by the petitioner (CWP No. 1582/96) was allowed. However, relief was not granted to the petitioner as respondent No. 1, on the recommendation of respondent No. 2, abolished the post of Inspector.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as an Inspector by respondent No. 2 on 1st June, 1992 on ad hoc basis. Thereafter a proper interview was held on 2nd August, 1993 and the Selection Committee found petitioner to be most eligible candidate. However, respondent No. 2 appointed the petitioner on ad hoc basis. Respondent issued a memorandum dated 9th September, 1993 thereby informing the petitioner that her services have been extended retrospectively from 1.8.1993 to 9.9.1993 and on 9.9.1993 services of the petitioner stood terminated and on the same date petitioner was appointed purely on temporary and ad hoc basis from 13.9.1993 to 12.3.1994. The stand of the petitioner was that she had no choice and in order to save her job she accepted the offer Although the petitioner was selected by a duly held Selection Committee, however, the respondent again invited application for the post of Inspector. The petitioner again applied and the petitioner was called for interview by the respondent on 15th December, 1993. Petitioner was again issued the letter of appointment on 8th April 1994. It is pertinent to reproduce the order:

(3.) From the above order it is clear that the post was permanent and the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working with the respondent from June, 1992 and had faced two Interview Boards and was found suitable. However, she was again kept on probation for a period of two years. Just when the so called period of probation was coming to an end on 3rd April, 1996, the petitioner was asked to submit her achievements as the petitioner's confirmation was to be considered by respondent No. 2. However, the respondent in a mala fide manner terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect by order dated 9th April, 1996. The petitioner challenged said order of termination on the ground of being mala fide and filed a writ petition (CWP No. 1582/96). The finding in the said writ petition has lot of bearing in disposing the present petition. The operative part of the order is as under: