PROMILA MALHOTRA Vs. KENDRIYA VIDAYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner from 22.8.1990, the date of her initial appointment. The petitioner has also sought the same salary as payable to a Post-Graduate teacher appointed on regular basis.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a part-time Post Graduate Teacher in English on 22.8.1990 up to 31.12.1990 on a consolidated salary equivalent to 75 per cent of the basic pay. After the tenure of first appointment came to an end, she was again appointed on 2.1.1991 upto 30.4.1991. The services of the petitioner were terminated at the time the school closed for the summer vacation. The petitioner was again appointed at the time of reopening of the school with effect from 25.6.1991. All the appointments were made on ad hoc basis. The petitioner continued to serve as a teacher right from 22.8.1990 onward with notional breaks and summer breaks. The petitioner claims that she performed duties from time to time under periodical appointments with notional breaks of two or three days every time. There was a regular post of Post-Graduate Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Narayanagarh (New Cantt.), Amritsar.

(3.) Certain posts of Post-Graduate Teachers were advertised in the month of July, 1992. The petitioner has asserted that she sent her application in response to that advertisement to respondent No. 2 but she was never called for interview though she was eligible for being considered. The petitioner filed a civil suit as she apprehended that she would be served with an order of termination of her services in the event of selected candidates being available. That suit was dismissed in December 1993 after respondent No. 3 made a statement that the services of the petitioner will not be terminated except according to law. Since the petitioner's services were thereafter not regularised and a teacher was instead posted, on transfer from Jammu to Amritsar, in her place, the petitioner sought intervention of this Court through the present petition against the termination of her services. She has claimed to have put in more than 3 years of service and also fulfils the requisite qualification for the existing post. Since her services have not been regularised and another teacher, Miss Kusum Lata, who had been selected in the year 1989, has been posted in her place, it is said to be a breach of condition of service.