SUNITA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 09.4.2012 (Annexure P-7), issued by respondent No.2 and also impugned letter No.16 dated 18.5.2012 (Annexure P-8) issued on the directions of respondent No.2 to terminate the services of the petitioner as there is no sanctioned post of helper in the school and also the order dated 30.3.2015 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.3 whereby services of the petitioner has been ordered to be dispensed with.

(2.) A cumulative reading of the appointment letter dated 29.01.2004 (Annexure P-4) and the order passed by the Head Teacher, G.G.P.S., S.S. Majra, Village Salimsar Majra, Sonepat reveals adjusting the petitioner against the same position held by her mother-inlaw Smt. Prem and the recommendation of the Headmaster of the same school made to the Block Education Officer, Sonepat vide memo No.69 dated 26.8.2011 confirming that the petitioner was working as Nursery Helper and was being paid fixed pay of Rs. 100.00per month with the money drawn from the Government treasury. Having regard to the case of the petitioner, there is no doubt regarding the appointment of the petitioner and its validity and for making a case for permission to pay the minimum salary to the petitioner; and the fact that the appointment was made in 2004 with the permission of the Block Education Officer, Sonepat; and the order passed in CWP No.10561 of 2012 in the case of the petitioner herself, decided on 24.9.2014, it appears that the impugned order dated 31.3.2003 has the effect, prima facie, of annulling the directions of this Court. The operative part of the judgment and order in the aforesaid writ petition are reproduced below :-

(3.) I may record that the word "not" used in the third last paragraph of the order was an accidental slip and clerical mistake as it would run counter to the reasoning in the preceding paragraphs that indeed Smt. Prem was appointed against a "post" vide order No.1-2-75/415 dated 01.2.1977 Accordingly, the observation in the impugned order that the petitioner's services are no more required to be continued in the school without any substantive post is contrary to record. In the service rules there is hardly any difference between "post" and a "substantive post". Besides, the impugned order does not refer to the recommendations made by the Headmaster vide order dated 26.8.2011 (Annexure P14). Annexure P-14 has been placed on record by the petitioner through his replication, which has not been rebutted by the State. If the petitioner drew her wages from the Government treasury then it is also becomes a concluded fact that the post was duly sanctioned and was not just a local arrangement to employ a Nursery Helper to care for the children attending the school.