RAMESH KUMARI SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are similar in nature and therefore, the matters were heard analogously and decided by this common order. Facts are taken from W.P.No. 1616/2003.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in respondent No.3-School. She was working for more than 17 years in the said institution. The petitioner's name was shown in school magazine and G.P.F. was also deducted from her salary. Petitioner was aggrieved by Annexure-P/1, whereby her services are terminated w.e.f. 31/05/2003 abruptly.

(3.) A preliminary objection was taken by the respondents that petitioner was not working against a post which is sanctioned by the Government nor any grant-in-aid was attached to the post, on which petitioner was working and therefore, the said post cannot be treated to be aided post and therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.