SAVITA ARYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.5.2006 (P-5) rejecting his representation. In the representation she has prayed that she be taken back in service on the ground that she has worked for 89 days on the completion of which she was relieved in July, 1997. In the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has pointed out that the petitioner was relieved in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment, which stipulated that she was to be relieved from her duty after completion of 89 days. Thereafter the respondent department advertised the vacancies of Sanskrit Teachers for appointment in Government Schools but she was not appointed. Even otherwise the representation was made after a period of 9 years.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel, we find that no case for interference of this Court is made out. The petitioner is not armed with any legal right to claim re-appointment on the post of Sanskrit teacher. The so called discrimination pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner vis-a-vis some other employees whose representations have been decided in their favour, does not call for any detailed consideration in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi & others, 2006 4 SCC 1. It is well settled that amongst the ad hoc employees or 89 days employees, there cannot be any equality or similarity. In such cases no seniority is maintained and such staff is picked up for appointment on contractual basis to over come a contingency. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition. Dismissed.