SATWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition with the prayer that the order dated July 11, 1996 by which she was informed regarding the termination of her services as a Junior Scale Stenographer be quashed. The petitioner alleges that she had been appointed on April 24, 1995 for a period of 89 days. On May 13, 1996 she had given birth to a baby. She had applied for maternity leave. Instead of granting leave, the respondents had terminated her services. She alleges that an application for the grant of maternity leave was submitted by her on July 26, 1996.

(2.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it has been pointed out that the petitioner had been initially appointed in the District Consumer Forum at Ropar on ad hoc basic. Her services were terminated on February 29, 1996. She had joined in the District Forum at Fatehgarh Sahib on April 16, 1996. At that time the petitioner was pregnant for 6 months. In accordance with the Government instructions, she could not have been appointed. In any event, at the expiry of the period of 89 days no extension in service was given to her. There was, thus, no illegality. The action was in strict conformity with the terms of appointment.

(3.) It has been further averred that the petitioner was not qualified for appointment to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer as she was not a Graduate. The qualifications had been laid down by the State Commission by the Instructions issued on January 24, 1996. Since the petitioner was not qualified for appointment and she had not passed the test in shorthand, she had no right to the post. Still further, the respondents have pointed out that the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit No. 230 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ropar. She had claimed her salary for the period from March 1, 1996 to April 15, 1996. This suit had been filed in April 1999. At that time, the petitioner was aware of the order dated July 11, 1996 by which her services had been terminated. The cause of action, if any, had accrued to her at that time. She had not challenged the order of termination. Thus, by invoking the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the respondents maintain that the petition is not maintainable. Besides all this, it has also been pointed out that the order of termination was passed on July 11, 1996. The petitioner had submitted a representation in September 1996. This representation was rejected by the State Commission and the decision was conveyed to her vide letter dated May 2, 1997. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner after a long delay in May 1999. On this basis, the respondents maintain that the writ petition is wholly incompetent and should be dismissed.