RAJNI BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 29.6.1995 (annexure P-3) issued by the Vice-Principal, Government Vocational Education Institute, Naultha (Panipat), terminating her service with effect from the afternoon of 29.6.1995.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, called upon the Employment Exchanges to send the names of persons eligible for recruitment to the 13 posts of Language Teachers (English). The petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Caste and who was registered with the Employment Exchange, was sponsored for selection and appointment as Language Teacher (English). A Selection Committee was constituted by the respondent No. 2 and on its recommendations order (Annexure P 1) dated 2.3.1995 was issued by the respondent No. 2, appointing the petitioner as Language Teacher (English) in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-1600 on purely adhoc basis for fixed term ending on 30-6-1995 with a condition that her service would stand terminated on 30-6-1995. Pursuant to the appointment order, the petitioner joined service on 8.3.1995. On 29.6.1995 the Vice-Principal, Government Vocational Education Institute, Naultha (Panipat), brought about an end to the service of the petitioner by relieving her in the afternoon of 29.6.1995 in accordance with the conditions incorporated in the letter of appointment. It is also revealed from the record that a requisition for regular recruitment against 13 posts of Language Teachers (English) has been sent to the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, but the said Board has so far not made any recommendation for regular appointment of the candidates to these posts.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and fairness of the conditions incorporated in the letter of appointment on the ground that when regular posts are available and appointment on adhoc basis has been made after due consideration of the candidature of the eligible persons and on the recommendations of the Selection Committee there could be no justification for limiting the appointment to 30.6.1995, and then terminating her service on the ground that appointment was for a limited duration. She has also pleaded that when the posts are lying vacant and regularly selected candidates have not been made available for appointment against the vacant posts, there could be no justification for terminating his service.