DIVYASHREE Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. Naik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Govind Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondents. Writ Petition is directed against the Order, dated 27th November, 2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Original Application moved by the Petitioner against the Order of Termination came to be dismissed.

(2.) MRS . Naik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, challenged the action of the Respondents as well as validity of the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the following grounds : - 1. That, the petitioner was appointed as a Part -time Medical Officer in the year 1991, for a period of one year and thereafter she continued to work as such till date her services came to be terminated. It is submitted that the Petitioner was holding the post as a Part -time Medical Officer and, therefore, it is in that sense ad hoc in nature and, therefore, as per the settled principles of law the Respondents cannot replace an ad hoc employee by appointing another ad hoc employee and in view of this principle, the action of the Respondents in appointing somebody else on ad hoc basis is impermissible and the same is bad in law. 2. It is further urged that the order of termination is bad in law on the count that the same is not issued by the appropriate authority which is competent to terminate the services of a Part - time Medical Officer. In the present case, the Order, in question, is issued by the Chief Administrative Officer, and not by the Assistant Chief of Air Staff and, therefore, the Order of termination is bad in law.

(3.) MR . Mishra, learned counsel, further contended that so far as mala fides, which are alleged by the Petitioner are against Mrs. Joshi and they are not relevant for the issue in question, since Mrs. Joshi is not appointed in place of the petitioner as a Part - time Medical Officer. The Department has selected one Mrs. Mate for the post and she will be appointed as a Part -time Medical Officer. It is, therefore, contended that the question of mala fides in such situation does not arise.