(1.) The petitioner has impugned the termination order contained in Memo No. Arch-81/10718 dated Sept. 30, 1981, issued by the Chief Architect, Haryana, Chandigarh, in this petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The petitioner was offered a temporary post of Assistant Draftsman in the Department of Architecture, Haryana vide Memo No. Arch-79/7006/E2, dated Aug. 3, 1979. The appointment was made purely on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or such less period for which her services were actually required. On the same date, another letter was issued as contained in Memo No. Arch-70/7006/E2, dated Aug. 3, 1979 stating that the appointment of the petitioner would be purely temporary on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till such time an approved candidate of the Subordinate Services Selection Board joins, whichever was earlier and that her appointment would be against the reserved post meant for Scheduled Caste. The petitioner's service were terminated on Sept. 30, 1981 and the said order is under challenge in this petition.
(3.) Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Chief Architect, Haryana. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis against a temporary vacancy for a period of six months. On the advice of the S.S.S. Broad, it was mentioned in the appointment order that the appointment was made against the post reserved for Schedule Caste. The S.S.S. Board had pointed out the shortfall of notified vacancies. This was necessitated to clarify the reserved post for Scheduled Caste and Ex-servicemen candidates. In order to show the exact position of the petitioner in the roster of vacancies, necessary correction was made in the appointment letter to indicate that she had been appointed against the reserved post. She was allowed to continue for two years against the reserved post meant for Scheduled Caste. Since the appointment was purely temporary, her services were terminated since these were no longer required.