SUNITA BABULAL VARU Vs. DDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition the petitioner has prayed that order dated 17th May 1990 passed by respondent No.2 may be quashed and set aside and the consequential order dated 18th May 1990 passed by respondent No.3 may also be set aside. The petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc and temporary basis as a Dayan (Midwife). The petitioner was required to attend the patient at the time of delivery. It seems that the petitioner has undergone the training for a period of 3 months from May 1989 to July 1989 for which a certificate dated 20.1.1990 was issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Dudhai. Thereafter, by order dated 28th August 1989 the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc and temporary post as Dayan (Midwife) in the pay scale of Rs.750-870-940. It is mentioned that the said appointment is subject to rules and regulations framed under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. Subsequently, by an order dated 17th May 1990 her services were terminated on the ground that her appointment is not approved by the District Development Officer. Accordingly, her services were terminated with effect from 18.5.1990. The said order is challenged by way of this petition.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr Mehta states that for the post in question no recruitment rules are framed. It is submitted that the petitioner was regularly appointed on ad-hoc basis and, therefore, order of termination is illegal and arbitrary. Ms Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was not appointed by way of regular procedure and, therefore, she is not entitled to be appointed on the said post. Affidavit-in-reply is also filed by the District Development Officer, which is at page 17. As per the same, it is pointed out that the Taluka Development Officer is the appointing authority but he has not appointed the petitioner, he has not invited any names from the employment exchange and he could not have appointed anyone at his own sweet will and by following pick and choose policy. It is pointed out that the appointment is made contrary to the recruitment rules.

(3.) Learned advocate Ms Patel submitted that since the petitioner's appointment was not as per the rules, termination order is justified.