RAJASREE RAGHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel Mr. Anil N. Mehta for the petitioner, Mr. B.N. Doctor for respondent Nos.1 and 3, and Mr. Hriday C. Buch for respondent No.2.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed by the respondents on ad hoc basis on 21.9.1988 for a period of five months. She worked on ad hoc basis. Her services were terminated by order dated 26.12.1988. THEreafter, the petitioner was continued by the respondents on per page typing rate basis and ultimately, she was disengaged with effect from 11.9.1991. THE petitioner preferred Original Application No.326 of 1991 with M.A. No.352 of 1991 which was decided on 30.11.1999. THE claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, on the ground that the petitioner herself has admitted that she has worked on ad hoc basis only for a period of five months from October 1988 and thereafter, she has been working on per page typing rate basis, therefore, no right accrued to the petitioner to claim appointment with the respondents.