UNION OF INDIA Vs. LATIFA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents in Civil Rule 985/92, Union of India, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Assistant Commissioner and the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force Station, Jonhat, have filed this appeal against the judgment in Civil Rule 985/92, directing them to absorb the writ petitioner (respondent herein) against existing vacant post of primary teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya on regular basis within one month.

(2.) Respondent herein is a Graduate also possessing B. Ed. degree. Her plea for regularisation as a teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya at Jorhat has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. In the absence of candidates selected centrally by the Headquarter's office or Regional Office of the Sangathan on the basis of an All India advertisement, the Managing Committee of the local school wrote to the local Employment Exchange to sponsor candidates for short term adhoc appointment as primary teacher. Employment Exchange sponsored - respondent and others. They were interviewed by the Appointment Sub-Committee of the Managing Committee, which prepared a selecl: list. Respondent was appointed primary teacher on ad hoc basis on the scale of pay admissible to such teachers. On the expiry of the period of appointment she ceased work. This process was repeated on four more occasions. OH one - occasion she was ousted on becoming surplus. On two more occasions she was appointed on ad hoc basis as part time teacher at a fixed pay. The particular are as follows :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_586_GAULT2_1996Html1.htm</FRM> When she was appointed part-time teacher on the last occasion she left the school for medical reasons on 4.1.92. On 12.3.92 she gave a letter to the Principal of the school seeking fresh appointment as part time teacher. She was not appointed. She alleged that when the Sangathan Centre advertised for regular recruitment in 1988 and 1992 she had submitted applications, but she was not called for interview. On the allegation that she had worked for various periods from 1984 to 1992 she sought regularisation and consequential benefits.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants it was stated that every one of the earlier appointment was ad hoc appointment to meet special contingency. Every time Employment Exchange was requested to sponsor candidates and it so happened accidentally that every time respondent was sponsored and was appointed on ad hoc basis, but this stopped in 1989. In 1990 and 1991 she was appointed for short periods as part-time teacher at a fixed! pay. Central advertisement was published for regular recruitment in 1988, but the writ [petitioner did not apply as per Rides. She may apply when there is a next advertisement and she will be duly considered.