RINIYA LAXMIBEN UMARBHAI KOLI Vs. ASHRAM SHALA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of termination dated 18th of August, 2001, issued by respondent No.5 ? Bhimani Khadi Mandal Sarvodaya Ashram. It appears that the petitioner, a lady belonging to scheduled tribe, was unemployed and her name was enrolled in the Employment Exchange. Petitioner's name was recommended to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for appointment as `Kitchen Servant' in the Ashramshala, run and managed by respondent No.5. It is her case that she was interviewed by the Selection Committee on 20th September, 2000 and was issued an appointment order on 28th November, 2000. The appointment letter dated 28th November, 2000 is annexed as Annexure-A at page 8 of the petition. Bare perusal of the appointment letter would suggest that the appointment was purely on temporary basis. The appointment initially was made upto 27th February, 2001 and it is stated in the appointment letter that if no orders of further extension of service is passed before 27th February, 2001, then, the services would automatically come to an end. It appears that the management of Ashramshala i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not satisfied with the work of the petitioner and, accordingly, vide order dated 18th of August, 2001, terminated her services w.e.f. 20th August, 2001. The order of termination is annexed as Annexure-D at page 14 of the petition. This order was made subject matter of challenge in the present petition, and it appears that initially at the time of issuing of notice ad interim relief was granted, which was confirmed on 11.4.2002. BY virtue of interim relief, the petitioner continued in service upto 2005. It appears that, thereafter, a suspension order was served upon the petitioner on 10th of January, 2005. This order of suspension was made subject matter of challenge by way of Special Civil Application No.14479 of 2005. Record further reveals that this petition was not entertained and the same was withdrawn with a view to prefer representation before the authority concerned.

(2.) I have heard learned Advocate Mr. N.L. Ramnani appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP Mrs. Vaijayanti S. Pathak appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It appears from the stand taken by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that this writ petition is not maintainable as respondent No.5 does not fall within the ambit of ?State? or other authority or an instrumentality of State amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have also taken a stand that the petition cannot be entertained without availing of alternative remedy. Be that as it may, without entering into any controversy in this regard, I am not inclined to entertain this petition on a short ground that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis and during the period of her employment, her services were not satisfactory, which is evident from the order of termination passed by respondent No. 5 dated 18th of August, 2001. Taking into consideration the nature of appointment and coupled with the terms of appointment, it cannot be said that the petitioner had any legal right to continue in service. If the institution like the respondent No. 5, running Ashramshala, is not satisfied with the performance of the petitioner, then, in that event, her services can be terminated. The appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis. No illegality is said to have been committed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5.