SUSHMA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was offered appointment on a temporary post of Stenotypist in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 10.2.1986. Thereafter by an order dated 1.12.1988 her services were terminated as being no longer required. Petitioner had filed the present writ petition for the quashing of order dated 1.12.1988 with a further direction to the respondents to reappoint her from the date when her services were terminated and to regularise her services.

(2.) On the very first date of hearing, the writ petition was admitted to regular hearing and no interim relief was granted to the petitioner. Respondents have filed a written statement opposing the writ petition. It has been stated therein that the appointment of the petitioner was as a Leave Reserve Steno-typist. It is therefore contended that it was mentioned in the order of appointment that the same was on purely temporary basis and her services could be terminated any time without notice or without prior intimation. It is further mentioned in the written statement that even for the period, she worked as Leave Reserve Steno-typist, there were adverse remarks in her Annual Confidential Report for the year 1987-88 with regard to her working. These remarks were conveyed to the petitioner. Even thereafter two special reports were called for on 11.8.1988 and 29.11.1988 regarding the work of the petitioner which were not found satisfactory as she was not able to take dictation properly. It is therefore contended that her services were terminated by an innocuous order in terms of the conditions of her appointment.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook. A perusal of the facts noticed above would show that the petitioner had been appointed against a leave reserve vacancy and worked from 10.2.1986 upto 1.12.1988. The appointment was against a leave reserve vacancy and purely temporary. Even in that tenure of appointment, the respondents did not find the work of the petitioner upto the mark. Therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated by an innocuous order passed in terms of order of appointment. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the order of termination is perfectly legal and valid and warrants no interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, the petitioner has been out of the job since 1.12.1988. By now a period of 18 years has elapsed. No effective relief can possibly be granted to the petitioner at this stage.