ARUN LATA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on 24.9.1997 on the post of C & V teacher. The nature of the appointment was contractual on a fixed salary of Rs. 3500/-. She joined the service on 1.10.1997 ( Annexure P.2) and was relieved on 27.4.1998 on the joining of Shri Charanjit Singh, Punjabi teacher ( Annexure P.5). She made numerous representations stating that certain similarly situated persons have also been given appointment. Accordingly a prayer has been made by her that the relieving order dated 27.4.1998 ( Annexure P.5) be quashed and she be reinstated in service.

(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted because a contractual employee does not acquire any right to hold the post on permanent/ regular basis.

(3.) It is clear from the appointment letter issued to the petitioner that the nature of her appointment is contractual at a fixed salary of Rs. 3500/-. She has been relieved of her duties on 27.4.1998 when the regular appointed person has joined. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. has laid down that such contractual appointees do not acquire any right of continuation in service.