ASHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL)

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on the post of ANM during strike period on 89 days basis on July 29, 1998. In her appointment letter, a clause was incorporated that she would work for 89 days. THE instant petition has been filed for quashing the aforementioned term in the appointment letter dated July 29, 1998 (P-3) and the claim has been made on the basis of the C.W.P. No. 4210 of 1999 [2] judgment in Polu Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1998 (4) RSJ 152. It is evident from the perusal of the appointment letter that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of 89 days on a fixed salary of Rs.200 per day. THErefore, no illegality could be found in the clause restricting the appointment of the petitioner to 89 days, as she had been engaged on contract basis. THE aforementioned legal position is absolutely clear from the perusal of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and other, JT 2006 (4) SC 420. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.