(1.) RESPONSE to an advertisement resulted in selection of the petitioner for appointment as a lady Sub Inspector. In course of selection, petitioner had to appear in a written examination and thereafter, upon being found fit in physical examination, had to be interviewed. Marks obtained by the petitioner in the written examination and in course of interview, were to be added up. Petitioner received 464 marks and, securing of such marks, yielded an appointment in favour of the petitioner. The advertisement made it clear that the appointments, upon selection, would be given to temporary posts and as and when permanent posts will become available, people appointed against temporary posts, will be appointed to the permanent posts. After the petitioner was thus selected, she was sent for training. She completed her training and thereupon, while she was posted as Sub Inspector at Kotwali-Dehradun, on 27th June, 2005, her appointment was terminated in purported exercise of power under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, after giving her a month?s remuneration. The said order of termination was issued without any prior notice to the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the validity of the said order by filing a writ petition on the ground that the said order was not sustainable as it was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing. By the judgment and order under appeal, the same has been quashed. In the appeal, this Court granted interim stay of the judgment and order under appeal, which interim stay is still continuing.
(2.) IN paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition, it was contended that while preparing the select list, by mistake Km. Neelam, who received 470 marks in course of selection process, was shown to have received 460 marks, and accordingly, though she was to be selected for the post for which the petitioner was selected, Km. Neelam was not selected for the said post. It was contended that no sooner the said mistake was noticed, Km. Neelam was appointed and in order to appoint Km. Neelam, the appointment of the petitioner was put to an end. IN the rejoinder affidavit, except bare denial, the petitioner did not say a word as regards assertions, thus made in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit.
(3.) BEFORE parting, it is our duty to point out that in the rejoinder affidavit, it was contended by the petitioner that with 460 marks that she obtained, she would have had got one birth in the advertised posts. This assertion, we think, should have been made in the body of the petition by affecting an appropriate amendment thereto in order to compel the respondents to deal with the said assertion. That having not been done, we have not gone into that aspect of the matter and keep the same open to the petitioner to re-agitate, if she is so advised.