LAWS(P&H)-2004-11-76

URMIL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 23, 2004
URMIL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to have been selected on the post of Hindi Mistress. She was not appointed. The petitioner, therefore, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 12355 of 2000. This Court on 15.1.2002 passed the following order:-

(2.) When the petitioner was not permitted to join, she filed C.O.C.P. No. 810 of 2002. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the petitioner was permitted to join, in the meanwhile, the respondents had challenged the directions of this Court reproduced above by filing Civil Appeal No. 6750 of 1999 which was dismissed on 1.5.2000. During the pendency of these proceedings, the select list dated 16.11.1996, Annexure P6 attached to the writ petition, which had been earlier published, was revised by the departmental selection on 2.5.1997. The revised select list was published in two newspapers, daily 'Ajit and daily 'Tribune1 on 2.5.1997. In the revised merit list, the petitioner was not shown as selected. These facts were not brought to the notice of the department when the order was passed in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 12355 of 2000. When this important fact came to the knowledge of the respondents, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 6.8.2003 asking her to explain as to why her services should not be terminated. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the respondents on 29.9.2003. Having considered the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have dispensed with her services with immediate effect vide order dated 27.11.2003. Relevant part of the order is as under:-

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that since she had been appointed on the express directions of this Court, the respondents could not order the termination of her services. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Virender Singh Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., J.T. 2004(9) S.C. 293. The learned counsel has relied on the following observations:-